Practicing Social Work in Deprived Communities: Competencies, Methods, and Techniques (European Social Work Education and Practice) 3030659860, 9783030659868

Citation preview

European Social Work Education and Practice

Ana Opačić Editor

Practicing Social Work in Deprived Communities Competencies, Methods, and Techniques

European Social Work Education and Practice Series Editors Nino Žganec Department of Social Work, University of Zagreb, Zagreb, Croatia Marion Laging Faculty of Social Work, Health Care, Esslingen University of Applied Sciences, Esslingen am Neckar, Baden-Württemberg, Germany

European Social Work Education and Practice is a Series developed within the frame of the contributions of the European Association of Schools of Social Work (EASSW) on the current developments of social work education and its links to the practice of social work in a European context. The Series supports the international dialogue among social work academics, practitioners, service users, and decision-­ makers. The aim of the Series is to provide a platform for identification and discussion of various challenges and developments within European social work. Similar to other professions, social work also is constantly contending with new demands regarding changing fields of work, new financial models, rising competition among the institutions, new groups and types of service users, and many other challenges. All of these circumstances require professionals to be well prepared and to provide new responses on how to work in the context of globalization and neoliberalism while adhering to the principles of solidarity, social justice, and humanity. More information about this series at http://www.springer.com/series/16359

Ana Opačić Editors

Practicing Social Work in Deprived Communities Competencies, Methods, and Techniques

Editor Ana Opačić Department of Social Work University of Zagreb Zagreb, Croatia

ISSN 2662-2440     ISSN 2662-2459 (electronic) European Social Work Education and Practice ISBN 978-3-030-65986-8    ISBN 978-3-030-65987-5 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-65987-5 © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors, and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland

Preface

Each of us probably knows a local community that has development problems, which is considered underdeveloped or neglected or its inhabitants have more difficult lives than their counterparts in other regions. Numerous social workers begin their professional path or spend most of it exactly in these communities and certainly have a lot of experience and stories which they would like to share with the professional community. However, how much do we know about these challenging communities and what do we know about social work in those communities? The goal of this publication is to identify the relevant aspects of a deprived community, how they come to be and the processes underlying them, as well as illustrate practical models for social work in such communities. This book has three main parts. The first part comprises the first three chapters in which the authors, Ana Opačić and Nino Žganec, present a conceptual framework for understanding deprived communities. Exceptionally heterogeneous discoveries concerning deprived or disadvantaged communities throughout the world are systematised, which, until now, have not been integrated in a single book in this way. Chapter 1 includes terminology, semantic and theoretical analyses of the phenomenon. Should the reader feel bothered in encountering the concept of ‘deprived or disadvantaged community’, the term we predominantly use in this work, this chapter provides answers to many questions on the terminology and measuring of this phenomenon. Based on an extensive analysis of empirical research over the last 5  years, Chapter 2 presents the consequences of deprived communities for individual wellbeing and systematised discoveries as well as mechanisms contributing to this link. Chapter 3 analyses processes occurring within deprived communities in terms of evaluating the dominant principles for working in them. The central part of the book includes six chapters presenting social work practices in deprived communities throughout the world. Chapters 4 and 5, authored by Baiju P. Vareed and Jelena Matančević, respectively, present the importance of civic participation in the development of deprived

v

vi

Preface

communities, social structures acting as catalysers as well as the concept of participation. Chapters 6 and 7 provide a situational awareness of social work in communities focusing on the integration of migrants and refugees. In Chapter 6, authors Matilda Leppänen, Joonas Kiviranta, Anna Metteri, Paul Stepney and Tuula Kostiainen present an integration project in the multicultural neighbourhood of Herventa relying on a practical experimental model, which they have named as Kototori. Further, authors Odessa Gonzalez Benson and Charlotte Burnett in Chapter 7 provide a practical framework for social work directed towards the integration of a marginalised community of refugees under specific relocation programmes. Chapters 8 and 9 provide a multidimensional approach to social work in deprived communities. Authors Prudence Mafa, Frans Koketso Matlakala, Vincent Mabvurira and Jabulani Calvin Makhubele offer a number of possibilities in Chapter 8 for applying different models of work in communities with the aim of uprooting community poverty. In Chapter 9, Nino Žganec provides a specific analysis of the issues in developing social services for inhabitants in deprived communities with an emphasis on the need to advocate extensive social change in order to improve social protection locally. The last three chapters address models for developing capacities of local professionals and providing support to social workers who work in deprived communities. Carmen Luca Sugawara and Ana Opačić describe in Chapter 10 the ways in which institutions of higher education can be allies to deprived communities by organising service-learning programmes in the community, distance learning and undertaking collaborative participatory research in the community. In Chapter 11, Glen Schmidt analyses challenges encountered by social workers who work in remote Canadian communities. The author analyses the specifics of practices in those surroundings, but also shows the need for providing professional support from the wider community of professionals. Chapter 12 is authored by Ana Paula Pimentel Walker, Barry Checkoway, Odessa Gonzalez Benson and Ana Opačić, who analyse the possibilities and need for collaborative social work with other professions and present innovative models in practice and training to facilitate collaboration. The Conclusion (Chapter 13) in the book provides systematised discoveries of the role of work in deprived communities as a special area of community social work practice. We hope that this book will be used by numerous professionals in social work and community development, as well as by all those who, in their career, are involved in local and regional development, urban planning, rural development, development of public services and sustainable development. Zagreb, Croatia  Ana Opačić

Acknowledgements

I would like to express my appreciation to the European Association of Schools of Social Work (EASSW) for their support in publishing this publication, as well as the Springer editorial team for their full support throughout the entire process. Thanks to all my colleagues with whom I have had the opportunity during my professional path to collaborate on projects in post-war communities in my homeland of Croatia. I especially express my appreciation to my first field mentor, Mrs. Dijana Vuković, as the social worker who helped me acquire a sensibility towards working in deprived communities and showed by example that this type of work can be enriching and creative. I also extend my appreciation to all the people and inhabitants who have shared their life stories during the years of research and practical work. Many thanks for initiating this publication project also goes to my spouse Vuk Tvrtko Opačić, a university professor of geography, who has enriched me with his knowledge in understanding this phenomenon during our travels together throughout all the inhabited continents of the world. Finally, a special and the biggest thanks to all the authors and co-authors of the chapters in this book. I am honoured that this book has gathered authors from numerous parts of the world. Prior to writing this publication, I personally knew only four of the authors, and I had not known most of them in person. However, the readiness, responsibility and trust you showed is something I cannot thank you enough. Only one or two emails were enough to develop the same idea and the same publication project, which I hope is the first of many in the future. Ana Opačić

vii

Contents

Part I A Conceptual Framework for Understanding Deprived Communities 1 Understanding Deprived Communities at the Global Level: Semantic, Operative and Theoretical Dimensions of the Phenomenon����������������������������������������������������������������������������������    3 Ana Opačić 2 Effects of Living in Disadvantaged Neighbourhoods on Personal Well-­Being����������������������������������������������������������������������������   37 Ana Opačić 3 Principles of Community Development and Challenges Facing Deprived Communities���������������������������������������������������������������   69 Nino Žganec and Ana Opačić Part II Social Work Practices in Deprived Communities Throughout the World 4 Listening to the Least: Engaging Communities in Development Programs in India������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   91 Baiju P. Vareed 5 Searching for Local Answers to Societal Challenges: The Contribution of Civil Society Organizations and Social Innovations to Community Development����������������������������  107 Jelena Matančević 6 Developing Social Work Competencies to Empower Challenging Communities: From an Empty Foyer to a Shared Social Space��������������������������������������������������������������������������  121 Matilda Leppänen, Joonas Kiviranta, Anna Metteri, Paul Stepney, and Tuula Kostiainen ix

x

Contents

7 Accompaniment and Emergence: Social Work Community Practice with Resettled Refugees������������������������������������������������������������  139 Odessa Gonzalez Benson and Charlotte Burnett 8 Enhancing Poverty Reduction Through Community Work in Low-­Resourced Areas in Africa����������������������������������������������������������  155 Prudence Mafa, Frans Koketso Matlakala, Vincent Mabvurira, and Jabulani Calvin Makhubele 9 Developing Smart Social Services for Mending the Gap in Development Inequalities��������������������������������������������������������������������  177 Nino Žganec Part III Supporting Social Work Practice in Deprived Communities 10 Social Work Higher Education Institutions: Allies of Most Vulnerable Communities������������������������������������������������  193 Carmen Luca Sugawara and Ana Opačić 11 Culture and Resource Scarcity: Social Work Practice in Canada’s Remote Communities ��������������������������������������������������������  209 Glen Schmidt 12 Development of Deprived Communities Through Multidisciplinary, Interdisciplinary, and Transdisciplinary Approaches ����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  223 Ana Paula Pimentel Walker, Barry Checkoway, Odessa Gonzalez Benson, and Ana Opačić Part IV Conclusion 13 Conclusion: Full Profile of Social Work in Deprived Communities������������������������������������������������������������������������  243 Ana Opačić Index������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  255

About the Editor and Contributors

Editor and Contributor Ana  Opačić, PhD  is an assistant professor in the Department of Social Work, Faculty of Law, University of Zagreb, Croatia. Her field of interest includes community social work, international social work and theory of social work. As a researcher and practitioner, she is involved in  local vulnerable communities in Croatia. Dr Opačić did her PhD thesis on the conceptualisation of developmentally sensitive communities in Croatia, and has published numerous articles on this topic in distinguished peer-reviewed journals. Some of the subtopics include typology of underdeveloped communities, environmental justice, social capital and post-war reconstruction. Dr Opačić was active not solely as a researcher in deprived communities in Croatia, but was also engaged in developing service-learning programmes, social services, strategic planning and evaluation of development projects. Her professional as well as personal experience is deeply connected with challenges of living in deprived communities alongside all other issues that build this experience, such as war, post-socialist transition or social inequalities.

Contributors Charlotte  Burnett, MSW  is a candidate at the University of Michigan Dual Master’s Degree Program in Public Health and Social Work. She is interested in addressing health disparities, barriers to accessing care, and improving culturally competent care. She is also interested in how changes at the macro level, such as policy changes, can better support marginalised communities. She previously worked at the Program for Survivors of Torture at Bellevue Hospital in New York City, where she conducted intake forms to connect incoming refugees to medical, legal and mental health services. xi

xii

About the Editor and Contributors

Barry Checkoway, PhD  is an internationally recognised scholar and practitioner on youth empowerment, neighbourhood development and community change. His projects and publications draw on work with grassroots groups, community agencies and government programmes in the South Bronx, Detroit, Mississippi Delta, central Appalachia and South America, Europe, Africa and the Middle East, with support from the World Health Organization, Ford Foundation, Kellogg Foundation and other institutions. He worked with the White House in 1990 to launch AmeriCorps, then served as founding director of the Michigan Neighborhood AmeriCorps Program, Edward Ginsberg Center for Community Service and Learning, Michigan Youth and Community Program, and Youth Dialogues on Race and Ethnicity. Odessa Gonzalez Benson, PhD  is an assistant professor in the School of Social Work and Detroit School of Urban Studies Faculty Cluster at the University of Michigan. Her research areas include refugee resettlement, participatory approaches to social services and urban governance with refugees, state–civil society relations, and critical policy studies. Odessa’s current work are refugee policy discourse analyses and place-based research on migrant-run grassroots organisations in Grand Rapids and Detroit, examining institutional links, functions and use of urban space. She has a PhD in social welfare from the University of Washington, MSW from Arizona State University and a BA in communications from the University of the Philippines–Diliman. Joonas  Kiviranta, B.Sc.  is a social instructor who works in Adult Social Work Services for refugees and immigrants in the City of Tampere, Finland. Tuula  Kostiainen, PhD  works as project manager at Tampere University in Finland. She is responsible for ongoing professional education in social sciences, especially in social work. Matilda Leppänen, MSW  is a social worker employed at the Adult Social Work Services for refugees and immigrants in the City of Tampere, Finland. Carmen  Luca  Sugawara, PhD  is an associate professor and a Fulbright Scholarship holder. She has more than 20 years of experience in international social development, working and researching issues such as civil society networking, civil society strengthening, social capital, community development, and parental involvement in post-war reconstruction. Currently, as associate professor at the Indiana University School of Social Work at Indianapolis, Dr Luca Sugawara’s research and teaching interests focus on civil society and local capacity building. Prior to assuming her professorship at the Indiana University School of Social Work, Dr Luca Sugawara served as program officer with the Academy for Educational Development (AED), managing USAID- funded governance and civil society strengthening programmes within AED’s Eastern European civil society strengthening portfolio (Romania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Croatia).

About the Editor and Contributors

xiii

Vincent  Mabvurira, PhD  is a postdoctoral fellow in the Department of Social Work, University of Limpopo, South Africa. His research interests include child rights, social work, religion and spirituality, and indigenisation of the social work profession. Prudence Mafa, PhD  is professor at the University of Limpopo, Department for Social Work, in South Africa. She is involved in quantitative and qualitative social research. Her specific field of interest includes disempowered youth and addiction problems. Her current project is in the field of alcohol abuse among the youth in South African towns. Jabulani Calvin Makhubele, PhD  is professor in the Department of Social Work, University of Limpopo, South Africa. He is an expert in field of community development with a specific focus on climate change, indigenous knowledge and sustainable development. He has been involved in projects concerning addiction and mental health. Jelena  Matančević, PhD  is an assistant professor in the Department of Social Work, Faculty of Law, at the University of Zagreb in Croatia. She teaches courses in social policy and third sector. She is involved in national and international projects in the field of third sector impact, social innovation and measuring the civil society index. Frans  Koketso  Matlakala, PhD  is lecturer in the Department of Social Work, University of Limpopo, South Africa. He holds a PhD in the field of alcohol addiction and youth, and has published papers in field of mental health and addiction, with a specific focus on youth and women. He has previously been engaged in the field of indigenous knowledge and social work ethics. Anna  Metteri, PhD  works as a researcher and praxis educator in social work (emerita senior lecturer) at Tampere University in Finland. She has published many papers in the field of mental health and social work, gender issues and health determinants, as well as dimensions in social work practices. Ana  Paula  Pimentel  Walker, PhD  is assistant professor of urban and regional planning at the University of Michigan’s Taubman College of Architecture and Urban Planning. She teaches graduate courses in participatory planning and community development, comparative housing, environmental planning, award-­winning capstones, and comparative planning law. Dr Pimentel Walker investigates how disenfranchised communities engage with urban governance and evaluates the significance of participatory institutions in planning socially and environmentally just cities. Her research has been funded by the National Science Foundation and the Foundation for Urban and Regional Studies.

xiv

About the Editor and Contributors

Glen  Schmidt, PhD  is professor emeritus at the University of Northern British Columbia in Canada. He has practised social work for 15  years in Northern Manitoba, Canada. Dr Schmidt has worked in child welfare and mental health as a front-line worker, supervisor and manager. His work involved travel to isolated and remote Indigenous and single industry resource-based communities. In 1994, he joined the University of Northern British Columbia where he worked as a professor of social work for over 24 years before retiring. He continues to teach courses and conduct research during his retirement. His research focuses on issues of concern to remote communities, including recruitment and retention of social workers, development and evaluation of social work services, and the impact of resource development on people who live and work in remote communities. Paul Stepney, PhD  is adjunct professor of social work at Tampere University in Finland, and prior to this has taught at a number of universities in the United Kingdom. Paul’s research interests are in the area of critical practice and prevention, and he has published many articles and book chapters on this. He is co-author/co-­ editor of four books, including recently: Thompson and Stepney (2018) Social Work Theory and Methods: The Essentials, Routledge. Baiju  P.  Vareed, PhD  is assistant professor in the School of Social Work at MacEwan University in Edmonton, Canada. He has worked with various community development programmes in India. An expertise of his is community engagement, non-governmental organisations and participatory practices in their programmes. He has developed plans to ensure stakeholder participation in water and sanitation, agriculture, civic administration and livelihood programmes. He has also conducted several workshops on participatory rural appraisal for social workers and students. Nino  Žganec, PhD  is a university professor in the Department of Social Work, Faculty of Law, at the University of Zagreb, Croatia. He was president of the European Association of Schools of Social Work (EASSW), assistant minister and state secretary responsible for social welfare in the Croatian government. His field of work and interests include community social work, social work ethics, human rights and social services.

Part I

A Conceptual Framework for Understanding Deprived Communities

Chapter 1

Understanding Deprived Communities at the Global Level: Semantic, Operative and Theoretical Dimensions of the Phenomenon Ana Opačić

Regardless of its level of development, there is no country in the world that does not have a local community facing a significant developmental challenge. A community offers its members many facets of life: a space for co-life, solidarity and socialisation, a space in which families start and develop, in which inhabitants acquire a basic income and are ensured fundamental existential needs. The community is also a space for living on which people rely when encountering personal difficulties such as poverty, sickness, violence and trauma. The community is able to heal but also poison or place an additional burden on individual destinies. It can become a place of exclusion, fear, uncertainty and isolation. Due to its functioning and effects, the community is valuable for social work as a profession which has since its origins positioned itself between people and their surroundings and endeavours to construct an approach based on this relation. Social workers empower individuals, families, public institutions and also communities to fulfil their role. However, when a community additionally encounters development inequalities, difficulties including social, economic, political, geographic and ecological obstacles, the role of social work becomes even more challenging and relevant. Given that the goal of this edited book is to gain a deeper understanding of the role of social work in deprived communities in the widest possible sense throughout the world, the first chapter will touch upon three fundamental questions: • What does “deprived community” mean, and what are the concepts and meanings associated with it? • How are poorer developmental outcomes in local communities measured? • What theories are relevant in understanding deprived communities?

A. Opačić (*) Faculty of Law, Department of Social Work, University of Zagreb, Zagreb, Croatia e-mail: [email protected]

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 A. Opačić (ed.), Practicing Social Work in Deprived Communities, European Social Work Education and Practice, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-65987-5_1

3

4

A. Opačić

1.1  A  n Extensive Terminology for Designating Communities Experiencing Developmental Difficulties: A Fundamental Semantic Basis Throughout the world, no unique term can be used to describe communities facing developmental difficulties. To some extent, this makes systematic research difficult, adding that global situations are so diverse that neither a single term or scientific framework is possible. Specifically, what is referred to here is a spectrum ranging from seriously impoverished communities in the most populous countries in the world to large sparsely populated and exceptionally remote communities across the large expanses of Canada and Australia. However, sometimes different terms are used for the same phenomenon, as is evident even in the same scientific paper. Hence, it seems that specific terminology comes either from carefully selected and operationalised constructs or scientific creativity with words. In this book, various concepts and terms are used interchangeably, though the most frequent concept will be the deprived community used in a wider sense given that the concept includes the widest dimensions of a community as a whole. Scientific literature provides 15 of the most common terms used on a global scale: low-income community, poor community, impoverished community, deprived community, disadvantaged community, underdeveloped community, marginalised community, vulnerable community, remote community, ghetto, favela, slum, less favoured area, underprivileged community and underserved community. An analysis of scientific papers published in the Web of Science database implies that terminology is connected with a certain geographical context and relevant area of research. The analysis took into consideration the titles of scientific papers containing some of the mentioned terms, and along with the term community, the terms area or neighbourhood were also used. Based on the five dominant areas of research, an analysis of Table 1.1 leads to the conclusion that deprived communities in a wider sense are a phenomenon attracting interdisciplinary interest in the widest sense of the word. Further evidence shows published papers most often relate to the areas of public health, ecology, geography, agronomy and transdisciplinary areas such as regional planning, urban studies and urban planning. Concepts most often used in the sphere of the social sciences are the disadvantaged neighbourhood, low-income community, impoverished community, underdeveloped community, ghetto and favela, even though (as we will show in later chapters) it would be erroneous to say that other terms are not related to topics in the social sciences. Indeed, these terms cannot be separated from the social dimensions or socioeconomic political issues existentially encountered by members of these communities. When referring to scientific papers in the area of social work, the most commonly used terms are slum, low-income community, ghetto, disadvantaged community, poor community, vulnerable community, remote community, deprived community, underserved community, impoverished community, marginalised community and underprivileged community. So far, there have been no published scientific papers in the Web of Science database categorised within the respective area of social work with titles incorporating the term underdeveloped community, less favoured community or favela. Table 1.1 shows that there exists a certain regional preference for particular terms, though all the terms can be found in all regions of the world, even if at a

Public environmental occupational health (15.45%) The USA (34.98%)

Public environmental occupational health (23.9%) The USA (43.94%)

Public environmental occupational health (29.56%) England (37.45%) Public environmental occupational health (27.89%)

Low-income community/ area/neighbourhood (N = 1709) Author’s country

Poor community/area/ neighbourhood (N = 1644) Author’s country

Impoverished community/ area/neighbourhood (N = 132) Author’s country

Deprived community/ area/neighbourhood (N = 697) Author’s country Disadvantaged community/area/ neighbourhood (N = 1341) Author’s country

USA (40.12%)

Ranking 1 Public environmental occupational health (27.09%) The USA (63.2%)

Australia (16.63%)

Scotland (16.5%) Education educational research (8.87%)

General internal medicine (11.91%)

Brazil (12.88%)

Environmental sciences ecology (9.85%)

Germany (8.33%)

Canada (4.85%)

Netherlands (11.19%) The USA (6.74%) Psychiatry (5.3%) Sociology (4.85%)

England (12.08%)

48 (3%)

South Africa (4.7%)

60 (4.7%)

(continued)

Wales (4.88%) Criminology penology (4.7%)

14 (2%)

South Africa (5%) Education educational General internal 8 research (9.09%) medicine (7.58%) (6.1%)

Australia (5.17%)

South Africa (4.62%) Urban studies (5.29%)

Social Ranking 5 work General internal 70 medicine (6.03%) (4.1%)

South Africa (7.58%) Urban studies (7.64%) Environmental studies Geography (6.31%) (5.02%)

Canada (9.09%)

Peoples R. China (6.14%) Psychology (9.85%)

England (9.79%)

General internal medicine (5.66%)

Business economics (6.57%)

Environmental sciences ecology (9.31%)

England (5.68%)

Ranking 3 Ranking 4 Urban studies (7.37%) Environmental sciences ecology (7.08%) Canada (5.62%) Brazil (4.8%)

Ranking 2 Psychology (10.06%)

Table 1.1  Categorisation of published papers based on most frequent relevant categories and countries

1  Understanding Deprived Communities at the Global Level: Semantic, Operative… 5

Ranking 1 Economics (30.36%)

Underprivileged community/area/ neighbourhood (N = 91)

Less favoured community/ area/neighbourhood (N = 78) Author’s country

Vulnerable community/ area/neighbourhood (N = 670) Author’s country Remote community/area/ neighbourhood (N = 3670) Author’s country

Agricultural economics policy (30.77%) Czech Republic (17.95%) General internal medicine (20.88%)

Australia (24.06%)

Public environmental occupational health (18.21%) The USA (29.7%) Environmental sciences (13.27%)

Underdeveloped community/area/ neighbourhood (N = 247) Author’s country Peoples R China (15.79%) Marginalised community/ Environmental sciences (7.56%) area/neighbourhood (N = 450) Author’s country The USA (15.78%)

Table 1.1 (continued)

Public environmental occupational health (18.68%)

Netherlands (14.1%)

Economics (30.77%)

England (7.16%) Public environmental occupational health (1297%) The USA (15.09%)

Environmental sciences (8.96%)

Geosciences multidisciplinary (7.56%) Italy (9.78%)

The USA (10.12%)

Ranking 2 Political science (10.12%)

England (6%)

Peoples Republic of China (8%) General internal medicine (4.63%)

Germany (10.26%)

Environmental sciences (11.54%)

Canada (5.97%) Geosciences multidisciplinary (7.79%) Canada (9.19%)

Education educational Primary healthcare research (9.89%) (7.69%)

Peoples R China (11.42%) Agriculture multidisciplinary (15.39%) The USA (11.54%)

Brazil (6.12%) Electrical-electronic engineering (8.96%)

Geography (6.22%)

Ecology (6.22%)

Healthcare sciences services (4.03%)

Canada (2.02%)

25 (3.7%)

3 (0.7%)

Social work 0

Oncology (5.49%)

Food science technology (11.54%) Greece (8.97%)

India (4.95%)

3 (3.3%)

0

Australia (5.82%) Energy fuels 22 (7.63%) (0.6%)

Health policy services (4.03%)

Germany (4.89%)

Agronomy (5.11%)

Australia (1.62%)

Ranking 4 Ranking 5 International relations Sociology (6.07%) (6.07%)

Ranking 3 Social sciences interdisciplinary (9.31%) England (3.64%)

6 A. Opačić

USA (45.09%) Geography (10.76%)

Brazil (34.98%) Public environmental occupational health (16.22%) The USA (26.2%)

Author’s country Favela (N = 223)

Author’s country Slum (N = 3305)

Author’s country

England (20.88%) Public environmental occupational health (23.77%) The USA (78.63%) History (20.49%)

Author’s country Underserved community/ area/neighbourhood (N = 875) Author’s country Ghetto (N = 2548)

India (21.06%)

The USA (24.21%) Urban studies (10.14%)

England (2.4%) Political science (8.28%)

England (11.14%)

Kenya (5.42%)

11 (1.3%)

Bangladesh (5.36%)

France (2.69%) Regional urban planning (5.9%)

France (1.69%) Sociology (7.18%)

70 (2.1%)

0

Australia (1.49%) Urban studies 66 (6.87%) (2.6%)

Sweden (9.89%) Brazil (8.79%) Health policy services Oncology (11.31%) (7.31%)

Poland (1.85%) Social sciences interdisciplinary (7.62%) England (8.52%) Canada (3.14%) Environmental studies General internal (6.69%) medicine (5.9%)

South Africa (2.63%) Humanities multidisciplinary (8.28%) Canada (2.55%) Area studies (7.62%)

Canada (4.11%) Sociology (9.62%)

England (5.26%) Urban studies (8.52%)

The USA (10.99%) Healthcare sciences services (11.89%)

France (10.99%) General internal medicine (12.46%)

1  Understanding Deprived Communities at the Global Level: Semantic, Operative… 7

8

A. Opačić

metaphoric level. Hence, in the USA, terms that dominate are disadvantaged and low-income community/neighbourhood and the almost anthological term ghetto. The term deprived neighbourhood is used predominantly in the UK. Furthermore, the term underdeveloped community is used in the People’s Republic of China. Remote community is typically Australian, whereas the terms less favoured area and underprivileged community/neighbourhood are used in countries of the European Union. Favela is the term typical in South America, especially Brazil, whereas slum is used for India and some other Asian and African countries. This not only concerns terminological differences across global regions but a different conceptualisation and phenomenology of the concept for developmentally vulnerable communities. Based on topics which are dominant in papers and aggregated under specific terms, deprived communities can be categorised into specific groups: • Terms that designate a concentrated economically vulnerable population: lowincome community, poor community, impoverished community and disadvantaged neighbourhoods. This group includes communities primarily identified as a concentration of inhabitants living in poverty or having a combination of other features (ethnic, family, education and employment) attributed to lower socioeconomic status. These terms are most often used in the USA. • A holistic and comparative approach to underdevelopment combined with individual and structural features: deprived communities. This term unifies indicators of individual deprivation and includes structural indicators on the level of community, where deprivation is viewed with respect to the national average as a reference framework. The term is mostly used in United Kingdom. • Communities exhibiting less developmental outcomes: underdeveloped, underserved communities. The greatest emphasis on these terms is the level of development of the community or availability of services within them, and individual characteristics are taken less into consideration. The terms are used in various regions, whereas the term underdeveloped is used somewhat more often in China. • Communities with less opportunities for development: marginalised, underprivileged and less favoured communities. Again, the emphasis in this group of terms is on structured and not individual features, but contrary to the previous term, here unfavourable processes in development are taken more into account, instead of current developmental outcomes. The terms also indicate an inequality or unequal opportunities due to marginalisation processes in society or as a result of structural obstacles. All terms are prevalent in European usage. • Communities at risk: remote, vulnerable communities. A detected risk exists in these communities which may result in profound and serious underdevelopment. This may be due to spatial isolation or the risk of ecological catastrophes. Remote communities are often found in Australia and Canada, while vulnerable communities are studied in various parts of the world at risk from natural or other catastrophes. • Controversial communities in an urban setting: ghetto, favela and slum. These three terms mainly designate an urban setting which is controversial due to the imbalance of power within communities, as well as the community in relation to

1  Understanding Deprived Communities at the Global Level: Semantic, Operative…

9

its surroundings. These terms have a strong metaphoric meaning, indicating complexity and certain risks (whether violence, insecurity or poverty) and which have reached an extreme level. The terms used indicate a dominant problem-based approach, meaning that the very term points towards communities coping with certain difficulties and problems, which in social work language most likely is not an optimal solution. Alternatively and far less likely are terms indicating the manner of problem-solving such as the example of areas of special state care (Act on Areas of Special State Concern, OG nos. 44/96, 73/00, 88/02, 26/03 86/2008) or assisted areas (Regional Development Act OG nos. 148/09 and 147/14) in Croatia or in the French quartiers prioritaires (u Córdoba Hernández et al. 2018), but that approach is far less seldom and almost absent in standard scientific terminology. In general, this semantic analysis shows that this book considers deprived communities as local communities possessing some of the following attributes: they gather a significant number of inhabitants of low socioeconomic status, have unfavourable developmental outcomes with respect to their surroundings and face structural conditions as obstacles to development, and they are exposed to serious destructive risks, creating for their inhabitants unfavourable living surroundings with an unfavourable balance of power within the community as well as the community with respect to its environment.

1.2  A  pproaches to Operationalisation of Less Developed Communities How can those communities at risk of poor developmental outcomes and which are considered as deprived or unfavourable be identified and statistically measured? An extensive overview of recent research, publicly available statistics and theory presented in papers leads to a number of conclusions when addressing approaches in operationalisation of the earlier mentioned terms. • Researchers use single-variable solutions or indices as composite measures for detecting deprived communities. • Scientific practices rely on using officially defined indices or such measures are autonomously constructed by researchers. • Part of the statistical measures are based on an aggregation of individual variables at the community level, others are based on indicators at the community level, while the third part is a combination of individual measures incorporating variables at the community level. • The indicators use direct and/or indirect measures. For instance, direct indicators are the unemployment rate and the proportion of inhabitants living under the poverty threshold. Indirect or proxy measures are indicators of public institutions that provide measures or interventions. For instance, these include the proportion of inhabitants who receive unemployment benefits or social welfare assistance,

10

A. Opačić

the number of urgent hospitalisations, number of days in hospital for addiction treatment or the like. • Objective outcome indicators are most often used; however, few research uses subjective and process indicators. • In a smaller number of research, there exists the practice of authors identifying a community as deprived based on a generally known fact, impression or perception, though a certain system of indicators for that does not exist. In such cases, the community is more of a context of research and not the subject of research interest in itself. • Regarding the earlier mentioned terms, there are clear theoretical and operative definitions used only in certain situations (could possible say they have been ‘branded’), while other terms and associated indicators are more of a generic nature used in different contexts. Further on, single-variable solutions will be presented, followed by specific concepts with limited scope of use. Subsequently, numerous examples of generic terms and indices for wide uses will be provided. Finally, a number of examples using subjective and process indicators will be given.

1.2.1  O  perationalisation of Deprived Communities Using One Variable Though operationalisation of the complex term, such as a deprived community, using a single variable is surely not the best solution, sometimes it is acceptable due to insufficient statistical data or economic feasibility in conducting the research. This most often involves variables relating to the following: • Percentage of the population whose income is below the poverty line (Friedline et al. 2019; LaValley et al. 2019; Lee et al. 2018; Maguire-Jack and Font 2017; Mugoya et al. 2017; Prakash et al. 2017; Slain et al. 2018). • Median household income is below the national median level (Chen 2019; Child et al. 2019; Cohen et al. 2018; Madsen et al. 2019; Reboussin et al. 2016; Wang et al. 2018). • Average household income is in the lowest quartile (Kleinepier and van Ham 2018; Müller et al. 2016). • Or another method is used to determine a higher level of poverty (Finegood et al. 2017; Ramírez-Vélez et al. 2017). • Research by Yousuf Hussein et al. (2018) uses only the percentage of inadequate residential units as the criterion. Another research uses one proxy variable. This involves, for instance, whether the researched community is a location for social housing (Bakar et al. 2016; Dulin et al. 2018; Martin et al. 2017; Tillyer and Walter 2019), whether it is included in a certain assistance programme (Stattin et al. 2019; Trapl et al. 2017). An interesting

1  Understanding Deprived Communities at the Global Level: Semantic, Operative…

11

example takes place on Malta where a less developed community is detected as one in which a government agency for social welfare is located (Satariano 2019).

1.2.2  S  pecifically Defined Concepts: Slum, Ghetto and Favela, Remote Community, Vulnerable Community and Less Favoured Area Certain terms are “reserved” for certain communities throughout the world and which are phenomenologically specific, meaning they cannot be applied generically in a conceptual sense. However, this does not mean they are not applied in a wider context than first thought, given that they have become a metaphor or symbol to describe the status of a local community. These terms are slum, ghetto/favela, remote community, less favoured area and in recent years vulnerable community. 1.2.2.1  Slum Slums are considered a concentration of impoverished people in poor neighbourhoods of poor countries and which most explicitly present the picture of extreme poverty in the world. The UN estimates that 883 million people in the world live in slums, of which 332 million are in East and Southeast Asia, 197 million in Central Asia and 189 million in sub-Saharan Africa. The number of slum inhabitants is also growing (United Nations Statistics Division 2020). Five of the largest slums in the world are Khayelitsha, Cape Town, South Africa (400,000 inhabitants); Kibera, Nairobi, Kenya (700,000 inhabitants); Dharavi, Mumbai, India (1 million inhabitants); Ciudad Neza, Mexico City, Mexico (1.2  million inhabitants); and Orangi Town, Karachi, Pakistan (2.4 million inhabitants) (World Economic Forum, Agenda 2016 in Zaman et al. 2018). The most common definition is the one provided by the United Nations Human Settlement Program (2007) where a slum is a (mostly urban) neighbourhood fulfilling one of the following three criteria: 1. Inadequate access to drinking water, sewage and other general infrastructure. Specifically, a family does not have access to at least 20 litres of drinking water per person a day, or it cannot do so at an affordable price (up to 10% of the entire monthly household income) or subject to reasonable efforts (reasonable efforts is equivalent to a maximum of 1 h a day of effort to access minimum required quantities). Inadequate sewage infrastructure implies the absence of direct connections to the public sewage system, septic tanks, toilets equipped with cisterns or ventilated lowered area. 2. Low-quality housing is a house built from nonconstruction materials (e.g. metal sheeting, plastic, wood or mud), situated in hazardous locations threatened by landslides, floods, eruptions and the like, and which cannot be protected against severe climatic conditions, such as rain, heatwaves, the cold or humidity.

12

A. Opačić

3. Overpopulated households. According to criteria from the UN-HABITAT programme (United Nations Human Settlement Program 2007), an overpopulated household has three or more persons living in a common room (an area of less than 4 m2). It should be said that, contrary to ghettos which are formed through forced segregation of a group of inhabitants, slum inhabitants are there due to their decision. However, we could not consider this as a choice; instead it is a vicious cycle of poverty that captures multiple generations (Nijman 2010). In its definition, the UN emphasises spatial and infrastructural aspects; however, slums pose a global ethical question. Life in such communities with high environmental and economic stressors undoubtedly leads to social and family disorganisation (Zaman et al. 2018). Though the definition from the UN-HABITAT programme is most often used, certain countries such as India, Bangladesh and Brazil have provided their own statistical definitions primarily asserting that slums comprise series of residential blocks fulfilling criteria for inadequate housing solutions and overpopulation (Lilford et al. 2019). Specifically, slums have a tendency to expand, overgrowing the boundary of the neighbourhood or settlement. Therefore, Lilford et al. (2019) recognised two approaches to defining a slum: one that starts from gaining insight into residential blocks after which slum boundaries are defined (features first method) and the other approach starting from defined boundaries of the neighbourhood or settlement for which slum characteristics are described (space-first or top-down method). Resolving this dichotomy is exceptionally important in order to understand what actually is a slum and who lives in them. At a conceptual level, slums differ across world regions. For instance, research performed by Kuffer et al. (2017) based on satellite imagery showed that African and Asian slums are mostly found near rivers and in potential landslide areas, African slums take up more space, whereas population density in Asian slums is greater over a smaller area. However, there are uncertainties concerning slums, and the difference between a ghetto and slum is sometimes indistinguishable. For instance, favelas in South America have features of slums and also ghettos at the same time. Slums form due in various circumstances making them more heterogeneous. The existence of slums has been caused by the dramatic growth of cities over the past decades and devastation of rural areas. This disbalance has created new crises and potentially great health and ecological crises. Besides the mentioned process, slums also appear due to other circumstances. Smit et al. (2017) described a few types of slums in Africa based on their origins: slums forming from previous ghettos as a result of apartheid in which black citizens were forced into segregation; slums as organised residences for hired workers in industry (housing-turned slum); slums forming as a result of illegal occupation of lands and buildings (squatter camps); slums created through government welfare housing programmes; slums forming from transitional camps in which slum inhabitants are waiting for new housing solutions; and hybrid forms as a combination of the above-mentioned features. In other parts of the world, a proper settlement can also become a slum. This happens if community is affected by certain crisis or there is speculative building in collaboration with the government (Monson 1955). The

1  Understanding Deprived Communities at the Global Level: Semantic, Operative…

13

rare existence of slums in North America (Canada, USA) is the result of industrialisation and rapid housing solutions for large numbers of workers. An interesting phenomenon is rural slums in the USA due to the migration of agricultural workers. The Bracero Program brought 4 million Mexicans into the USA who were subsequently spatially segregated so as not to “infect” or put the domicile population at risk (Ramirez 2012). Slums are today’s civilisation problems, one of the most obvious proofs of global inequality and challenges in the decades ahead. They are dynamic, changeable and combined with migration caused by armed conflicts, natural catastrophes and pandemics, such as the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, which may lead to unimaginable harm for humanity. Of all the types of deprived communities treated in this book, slums are perhaps the greatest challenge for any professional involved in community development. 1.2.2.2  Ghetto Numerous scientific papers have addressed the issue of ghetto communities. Ghettos tend to be a backdrop in famous films, pop music motifs, paintings and many other forms of contemporary art. Equally so, the ghetto is a theoretical concept, as well as a symbol and metaphor for certain existential situations in urban settings. Ordinarily, ghettos are associated with ethnic segregation and violence. Ghettos first appeared in Europe but are most often associated with cities in the USA. Though at the start of the twenty-first century it seemed that ghettos were destined for history, an intensive wave of migration again opened up this topic and ghettos became a new reality not just in the USA but also in Europe, Asia and Africa, practically in all parts of the world where millions of people are on the move. Currently, migrant camps may apparently become ghetto communities, and if inhabitants enter the vortex of poverty, certain settlements located throughout the world will become slums (Knudsen 2016). The pace at which a ghetto forms is different as opposed to ghettos from the sixteenth or even twentieth century; however, the fundamental aspects of what a ghetto is and how it shapes societal relationships within and outside ghettos will probably not change. The first well-known ghetto was in Venice in the sixteenth century as a result of forced segregation of Jews (Kulakowski 2006). Even earlier, Jews where spatially concentrated in certain parts of the city, but what makes this segregation a ghetto in the sixteenth century is the use of force from external proponents. Since that time, the concept of a ghetto has retained aspects of spatial segregation of certain social groups under the use of (more or less formalised) coercion and enforcement by external proponents. Therefore, the source of influence and power against them comes from outside the community (Kulakowski 2006). A fundamental definition of the ghetto was given by Herbert Gans (2008) who cites four key characteristics of a ghetto: (1) the area of a ghetto is demographically and ethnically mainly homogeneous but also class heterogeneous, and there is a clear social stratification within the ghetto; (2) in time, communities become self-

14

A. Opačić

sufficient, and mobility towards their surroundings decreases as does general access to external resources; (3) ghetto inhabitants have a lower quality of life and also experience economic and political exploitation (not just within but also outside the ghetto); and (4) collective co-life is marked by marginalisation, violence, injustice and stigmatisation and is subjected to segregation. Complex relationships within ghettos and their surroundings are retained with the aid of the ghetto identity trait, which is especially highlighted in the definition provided by Wacquant (2015). Ghetto is a “potent collective identity machine” that gathers inhabitants around a common identity niche, aids inhabitants self-identifying with the “culture” of a particular ghetto and also emphasises differences in its surroundings; hence stereotypisation, stigmatisation and auto-stigmatisation deepens in time. The more a ghetto is perceived as different from the outside, the more its inhabitants perceive each other as being similar. Contrary to that, the more ghetto inhabitants view each other as similar, the more their surroundings perceive them as being different. To preserve the internal collective identity, the ghetto has mechanisms for social control. This interesting dynamic relationship of power and control (within and outside) was described by Povinelli (2018) who explained that camps for migrants under external control become ghettos which are then controlled from within and become a form of an “informally led” camp. 1.2.2.3  Remote Communities Though the concept of remoteness is often colloquially used, truly remote communities are found across large expanses in sparsely populated countries, such as Canada and Australia. Both countries have an Index of Remoteness. In Canada, it is calculated based on the number of inhabitants belonging to an administratively defined community and its remoteness from an area in which at least 1000 inhabitants live and which has a population density of at least 400 persons per square kilometre (Statistics Canada 2020). In Australia, Index of Remoteness is calculated by taking the road distance of a certain area with five types of urban centres depending on the number of inhabitants (large, medium-sized, small urban centres) and all five values are divided by the national average (Hugo Centre for Population and Housing at the University of Adelaide 2020). In both countries, remote communities are often settled with indigenous peoples. 1.2.2.4  Vulnerable Communities The concept of vulnerability until recently was a generic concept; hence today at times community vulnerability (e.g. in Spain as will be shown later) is also understood generically. However, when talking about a vulnerable community today, reference is made to a certain context. Ever since the United Nations Environment Program presented the country-level Environmental Vulnerability Index, it became clear that the term vulnerable community began to be used in terms of threats stem-

1  Understanding Deprived Communities at the Global Level: Semantic, Operative…

15

ming from the physical environment. The Index covers three basic aspects: exposure to ecological risks, level of resilience in responding to such risks and an assessment of damage occurring as a consequence of exposure to risks (Kaly et al. 2004). In line with this approach, specific indicators have been devised for measuring community vulnerability in certain areas. For instance, Kim et al. (2016) and Kumar et al. (2016) developed the Climate Vulnerability Index to evaluate community vulnerability to climate change, specifically in terms of consequences such as floods, droughts, typhoons and changes to the plant and animal world, just to mention a few. Gottero (2019) investigated risks towards agricultural areas stemming from intense urbanisation. An analysis of papers from the Web of Science database containing the terms vulnerable community, vulnerable area or vulnerable neighbourhood clearly indicates a prevalence of ecological and health topics. However, there are also examples where the vulnerability index is measured for specific social issues, such as the risk of violence (De Figueiredo et al. 2016) or in generic terms, in Spanish neighbourhoods as will be shown later. 1.2.2.5  Less Favoured Area This term primarily relates to the assistance programme for European Union member states, i.e. those regions facing certain developmental obstacles due to geographical factors. This form of assistance was established in 1975 and is directed to mountainous and other types of regions in which an unfavourable physical environmental exists, such as sloped regions, karst regions and seismic regions (European Environment Agency 1999). While some of these regions may generate significant income from tourism, most have less opportunity for development, especially the agricultural sector, not to mention other social, economic and ecological issues. The term less favoured region has been somewhat extended to other geographical areas in Europe which generally have less opportunity for doing business, whether it involves agriculture or the abandonment of industry. Therefore, less favoured regions have poorer infrastructure and less access to technologies, are more spatially isolated and transport disconnected and have lower level of education, as well as greater level of social, technological and economic exclusion (Rosenfeld 2002).

1.2.3  G  eneric Terms and Composite Measures in Tracking Community Development Generic terms can be found in recent literature including associated indicators useful for different parts of the world. The most often used terms are deprived neighbourhood/community and disadvantaged neighbourhood/community. The deprivation index mostly comprises aggregated individual variables and variables indicating community traits (see Table 1.2), while indices associated with the concept of a disadvantaged community are mostly based on aggregated individual traits (see Table 1.3).

Population Community Physical Income Education Employment Housing Health Crime structure services environment Index of Multiple Deprivation; England, UK; Used in: Adeyemi-Walker et al. (2018), Dann (2016), Joury et al. (2018), Roberts et al. (2019), Roe et al. (2016) and Watts et al. (2017) Crime – Road distance Air quality, road Mental disorders, Social Overcrowding, Social Enrolment traffic accidents rates to major illness/disability beneficiaries homelessness, beneficiaries rate, adult facilities ratio mortality ratio affordability skills housing conditions Scottish Indices of Deprivation, UK; Used in: Curl and Kearnes (2017), Kearns and Mason (2018), Mason et al. (2016) and McDaid et al. (2019) – Crime – Average drive Unemployment Overcrowding Addiction and Income Enrolment rates time and public rate No central heating mental disorder rate transport time related hospital stays Attainment to major and drug of school facilities prescriptions, low leavers birth weight, mortality ratio Index of multiple area-level deprivation for Auckland, New Zealand (Exter et al. 2016) – – Average drive Crime Overcrowding Alcohol related Social School pupil Social time to major rates and beneficiaries hospital stays, beneficiaries absences facilities public emergency stays, Enrolment order low birth weight, rate offences mortality ratio Liveability Monitor (Leefbaarometer), Netherlands (Gubbels et al. 2016; van der Greft and Droogleever Fortuijn 2017) Road distance Density, industrial Crime Single-­ Characteristics of % people with buildings, green to major rates parent building housing disabilities areas, national facilities households ownership monuments, water % migrants supply, noise exposure

Table 1.2  Community deprivation indices based on individual variables and community-level variables

16 A. Opačić

1  Understanding Deprived Communities at the Global Level: Semantic, Operative…

17

Table 1.3  Community deprivation/disadvantage indices based on aggregated variables on an individual level Population Income Education Employment Housing Health structure Deprived Neighbourhood Index, Denmark; used in Algren et al. (2017), Algren et al. (2018) and Tanggaard et al. (2018) – – % of lowest % of those % of unemployed income quartile with basic education Areal Deprivation Index, Japan (Nakaya et al. 2014), used in Tabuchi et al. (2018) % of rented – % of old – – % of sales and couple service workers, houses households % of agricultural % of old workers, % of single blue caller households workers, % of unemployment single-mother rate households Pobal HP Deprivation Index, Ireland, In (Córdoba Hernández et al. 2018) Population Age dependency Average % of change, lone persons per primary and ratio parent ratio Unemployment room, % of % of rented and % rate third-level of owned Higher/lower education housing professionals Semi- and unskilled workers Indices of concentrated disadvantage USA; used in different variations with 3 or 4 dimensions: income, education, employment and population structure Alvarado (2016, 2018), Copp et al. (2019), DeGuzman et al. (2017), Denney et al. (2018a, b), Dennison and Swisher (2019), Goldstein et al. (2019), Lei et al. (2019), Levy et al. (2019), Owens and Candipan (2019), Yun and Lee (2016) and Vogel and South (2016) – – % of % of % of % of families female-­ population unemployed below poverty headed adults lacking or level households % of households with a high % of % of unemployed receiving public school single-parent population over diploma assistance households 16 Median % of African % of workers household Americans holding income managerial or professional jobs Indices of concentrated disadvantage USA; used in different variations with dimensions: income, education, employment, housing status Barber et al. (2016), Garthe et al. (2018) and Kane et al. (2017) (continued)

18

A. Opačić

Table 1.3 (continued) Population Employment Housing Health structure % of % unemployed % of renter-­ female-­ occupied adults headed % of non-white-­ housing households Proportion of collar and non-professional vacant housing units jobs % of homes % of adults in either vacant or managerial or renter-occupied professional occupations Ontario Marginalization (ON-Marg) Index, Canada, Luan et al. (2016) and Zygmunt et al. (2019) Ethnic Income Education Dependency Residential concentration level ratio instability Single-parent (home security, families ownership and occupancy) Index of Relative Socioeconomic Disadvantage compiled by the Australian Bureau of Statistics, Australia. In Loh et al. (2016, 2018) and Rachele et al. (2018) Single-parent % of No Internet % of families Income Education disability/ households connection with jobless level % of long-term No car, parents poor separated/ health overcrowded % of English condition, divorced unemployed amount of adults rent % of labourers, machinery operators, low skilled workers Disadvantaged neighbourhoods, Finland, Salmi et al. (2018) Mean income Educational Unemployment level rate ADI Index (Area Deprivation Index), USA, Durfey et al. (2019) Single-parent Without a Family income Education Employed households motor vehicle, level persons 16+ in white collar jobs without a telephone, without complete plumbing, owner occupied housing units Overcrowded, monthly mortgage/rent Urban Vulnerability Indicators, Spain. (In Córdoba Hernández et al. 2018) Income % of families below poverty level Household income Households receiving public assistance

Education % of population with or without a high school diploma

(continued)

1  Understanding Deprived Communities at the Global Level: Semantic, Operative…

19

Table 1.3 (continued) Income

Education Employment Housing Health Unemployment Houses without Education rate sanitation level facilities % of Status of the population buildings without education Urban marginalised areas, Romania (Córdoba Hernández et al. 2018) Education Unemployment Dwellings not People with disabilities/ level rate connected to chronic electricity illness Overcrowded dwellings Households that do not own the dwelling Unsatisfied basic needs INDEX, Columbia (Davalos and Morales 2017) Inadequate School-age Economic housing children not dependence materials, enrolled in inadequate school access to running water and sewage, overcrowding Carstairs index (Roe et al. 2017) Low social class Male Lack of car unemployment ownership, overcrowding

Population structure Immigration and foreign citizens Elderly population

% children

Besides these two terms, the terms marginalised communities and marginalisation index, development index, vulnerability index and quality of life index are used at times generically. Ordinarily (via direct and indirect proxy variables), the indices contain, to a greater or lesser extent, a number of indicators for at least three of the above-mentioned areas: I. Variables at an individual level:

(a) Income covering household (family) income indicators or part of the population receiving social welfare benefits. (b) Education relates to part of the population with the highest and/or lowest levels of education and also part of the population possessing certain skills (e.g. proficiency in English). (c) Employment refers to different unemployment rates and some of those employed in certain sectors (agriculture, industry, services) and in so-called white- or blue-collar occupations, as well as the ratio of employed and eco-

20







A. Opačić

nomically dependent population. The proxy variable is the part of the population who are beneficiaries of unemployment benefits. (d) Housing. This category includes indicators relating to property ownership, as well as housing conditions (such as inadequate sanitation), overpopulation and car ownership. (e) Health. The category of health includes population with disabilities and chronic illnesses, mortality trends with respect to the national average and proxy measures such as the number of days spent in hospital due to illnesses or mental disorders, including the number of emergency interventions. (f) Household structure. Certain indicators refer to the existence of a vulnerable population, such as single-parent families, proportion of migrants from various countries (sometimes migrants are classified as “Western” and “nonWestern” migrants). An indicator of change for the entire number of inhabitants is used less seldom. (g) Crime and misdemeanours cover mainly the number of committed crimes, especially those relating to violence in the neighbourhood (murder, rape, assault) or property crime (burglary and theft) as well as misdemeanours against public order (such as writing graffiti and other actions).

II. Variables at a community level:

(a) Services in the community. This variable incorporates indicators of road distance from key services (e.g. school, post office, stores, general practitioner) or the time necessary to such destinations by car or public transport. (b) Physical environment. Besides natural features (green areas and quality of the environment), it also includes community infrastructure (e.g. businesses, national monuments).

1.2.4  T  he Use of Subjective and Process Indicators in Measuring Deprived Communities Though used less seldom, there are examples of subjective assessments instead of objective ones, as well as indicators for community processes, not just outcomes. So, for instance, Troxel et al. (2017) combine an objective indicator (proportion of the population under the poverty threshold) with subjective assessments of inhabitants concerning cohesion in the community, monitoring and security. Hastings and Snowden (2019) measure neighbourhood disadvantage solely using variables depicting social disorder and lack of amenities. Cheval et  al. (2019) in the large European study SHARE used subjective assessments of service availability and estimations of neighbourhood nuisances, such as pollution, vandalism, crime and the like. The introduction of subjective and process dimensions may provide a deeper insight into identifying which communities face serious developmental challenges.

1  Understanding Deprived Communities at the Global Level: Semantic, Operative…

21

This is in line with the notion that community represents a complex multidimensional concept in which development processes and outcomes need not be aligned. Finally, an important aspect is to evaluate what can the community ensure for particular groups of inhabitants. An example of such measure is the Child Opportunity Index (Noelke et al. 2020), which measures educational opportunities for children in particular communities, healthy environment, exposure to toxic effects, employment opportunities as well as economic and social resources.

1.3  T  heoretical Framework for Understanding Deprived Communities Having investigated numerous theoretical and empirical papers on deprived communities located throughout the world, the mechanisms acting on complex development processes can be grouped into three concepts: structural framework, power and internal development processes. Developmental outcomes in a community are destined to be dynamically conditioned by national or global structural factors, the disbalance of power both within and outside the community, as well as the community’s response which is formulated within local structures and based on its capacities. In simpler terms, these relationships can be presented graphically as given below (Fig. 1.1). To understand the process of development in deprived communities, frequently used theories will be expounded in terms of three specific approaches, i.e. the structural approach, critical approach and community capacity-directed approach.

1.3.1  S  tructural Factors Leading to Less Community Development There can be no denying that objective, external or structurally limiting factors are not equally burdening different communities. Aggravating structural factors that are set or created from outside and which jeopardise a community are not difficult to detect. Spatial distance and isolation, unfavourable climate and geographical relief conditions and affliction due to a natural catastrophe are just some of the factors. Furthermore, these factors brought on through globalisation – such as urbanisation and de-ruralisation or deindustrialisation and the relocation of industries, as the motor of development, from one part of the world to another. In addition, some communities experience war, forced migration and political processes which alter the structure of the population and reduce the overall human capital of a community. In terms of impoverished European regions, authors Bertolini et  al. (2008) speak of a vicious, perpetual and isolating cycle of spatial isolation,

Fig. 1.1  Factors that contribute to less community development

FIGHT FOR LIMITED RESOURCES AND POWER IMBALANCES

DEVELOPMENT PROCESSES: institutions, capacities, structures, significance, community’s archetypes

PRACTICING POWER, EXPLOITATION STIGMATISATION, UNEQUAL OPPORTUNITIES

AUTOSTIGMATISATION, SOCIAL DISORGANISATION, CONFIRMATION OF POSITION OF POWERLESSNESS

STRUCTURAL FACTORS: geographical position, natural and climate conditions, economic processes, globalisation, wars and conflicts, politicalstructure

22 A. Opačić

1  Understanding Deprived Communities at the Global Level: Semantic, Operative…

23

lower levels of education, less employment opportunities and demographic or population declines. Spatial distance and isolation need not be the only factor of exclusion. The concept of inner peripheries indicates that a geographic distance and socioeconomic distance are not equivalent terms and that communities located relatively close to regional centres may be excluded from basic economic flows or basic social services (Noguera et  al. 2017). This exclusion may stem from changes in economic sectors, government austerity policies or large infrastructural changes. For instance, the building of motorways easily enables one region previously located at the outskirts to enter central flows, whereas another region that had far more functions subsequently becomes a periphery region (Lukić et  al. 2009). Noguera et  al. (2017) shows that periphery processes start with primary processes subject to external structural factors but are then deepened due to secondary processes involving marginalisation whereupon the process of peripherisation continues due to insufficient resources, know-how, general capacities and resources for further development. Structural factors are always a threat and opportunity. When they change, the maps are again shifted, and undeveloped communities can become developed ones, and vice versa. Accordingly, Mediterranean island communities had once suffered from famine, but today they are one of the most developed and expensive regions for living. On the other hand, once rich industrial regions are today dotted with huge vacated industrial facilities in search of a new economic and social identity. Today, numerous structural factors affect local development. This includes climate change and ecological catastrophes as well as new decisive structural factors which may gradually or immediately jeopardise the development of many, now even propulsive, rich regions and communities. In addition, modern migration and the need for rapid care directed to large numbers of impoverished and traumatised refugees also contribute to impeding local development if communities become refugee ghettos. Digitalisation and transitioning to a green economy dictate new economic trends with which some players lose pace. Finally, what is currently witnessed today is the COVID-19 pandemic which has brought about a lockdown without precedence, nor is there a clearly defined duration and consequences. The presumption is that these circumstances will lead to new disbalances in local development. The effects of structural factors cannot be denied, but viewing the complex processes of local development as the result of simple linear cause-effect links would be erroneous. Therefore, a conceptual understanding complemented with other insightful aspects is the proper path.

1.3.2  C  ritical Theoretical Approaches to Understanding Developmental Inequalities Among Local Communities Once when a community is positioned as poorly developed due to a series of structural factors, it becomes vulnerable to pressures from the centres of power which are usually located outside of it. The source of inequality stems from the fact that

24

A. Opačić

deprived communities are more or less spaces of enforced segregation for underprivileged social groups. Any inequality, based on a critical theory, is the result of a disbalance of power and consequently deepens. Deprived local communities experience this deprived social power in various ways. 1.3.2.1  The Use of Power Through Enforcement Mechanisms Deprived communities are often the result of enforced segregation. In addition, external actors through direct action can implement practices for supervising and controlling the population, including practices that are attributed to culturalcide and genocide. For instance, indigenous communities in Australia and Canada have been faced with the practice of acculturation in the past involving the separation of children from indigenous communities to institutions or families in which children were adopted according to Western norms. In socialist countries, the practice was to confiscate property from private owners where such property was considered an important community resource. Moreover, there are numerous examples of colonialism testifying to the alienation of natural resources and cultural goods throughout the world or implementation of other harmful practices such as nuclear tests undertaken by France in the sea of French Polynesia. In more recent times, the use of methods involving enforcement to a greater or lesser extent has led to actions in “cleaning out” slums or forcing migration of some slum inhabitants. Direct enforcement is not the most frequent form of inequality that a deprived community experiences, but these disappointing cases do exist even in the most affluent parts of the world and today in the twenty-first century. When referring to the use of power as an enforcement mechanism, in the last few decades, the process of gentrification has opened up numerous controversies. To some extent, gentrification features the direct use of external political and legislative powers to exert a direct influence on the physical and residential appearance of a neighbourhood, where older, dilapidated and poorer buildings make way for modern buildings, skyscrapers, shops, businesses and newly refurbished green areas. Opinion on gentrification in the scientific community is divided, and talking about a good or bad process is not that simple (Doucet and Koenders 2018; Lees et al. 2008). However, in scientific discourse, as pointed out by Doucet and Koenders (2018), a polarisation between the “winners” and “losers” of gentrification cannot be avoided. Critically orientated scientists talk about processes involving the practice of powers of influence over those less influential using concepts such as false choice urbanism, global urban strategy, paradox of gentrification and the slow violence of gentrification (DeFilippis 2004; Kern 2016; Paton 2014; Smith 2002 in Doucet and Koenders 2018). All of these have shown that inhabitants in deprived communities actually do not have a true right to participate in deciding on the future of their community and that pressure from external, even global, economic centres of power through the mediatorship of national powers will sooner or later, through direct or indirect market mechanisms, alter the identity and traits of the community making it inaccessible to even its own inhabitants. Of course, the effects of gentrification differ in regard to the overall rule of human rights and freedom in a community and hence, for instance, the

1  Understanding Deprived Communities at the Global Level: Semantic, Operative…

25

effects of gentrification in the Netherlands are milder than those in southeast Asia, as well as in the USA and England (Doucet and Koenders 2018). 1.3.2.2  Legal Exploitation of Community Resources Deprived communities far more often experience legalised mechanisms of exploitation against their assets which further weakens them. Though it may appear that such practices are a logical outcome of unequal starting positions and that the law is the same for all, very often situations reveal that laws allowing exploitation are a consequence of powerful lobbying by small interest groups siding with political and economic kingpins positioned outside the particular community. Deprived communities are often located in attractive and rarely populated nature locations, which makes them vulnerable to exploitation for their most valuable resources. In this way, concessions on natural resources may end up in the hands of external actors, or natural resources are exploited and undergo secondary processing elsewhere for a miserable fee to the local community, as is the case with the wood industry. Deprived communities often become “attractive” locations for the disposal of hazardous waste, and, interestingly, sometimes some of the well-paid jobs are given to hired or nomad workers, instead of local inhabitants, to provide a steppingstone to something greater. In other words, a deprived community becomes a depot for unfavourable social processes, and whatever of value is found within it is in danger of being used for the benefit of external actors. 1.3.2.3  Stigmatisation In each country, there are examples of a community’s name becoming a synonym for underdevelopment or in derogatory terms “backwardness” or in other cases a synonym for violence, fear, poverty or insecurity. Spatial stigma is a scientific concept meaning that inhabitants of a community are marked by the fact that they live in such a community and are attributed negative connotations which the community carries in general (Keene and Padilla 2014). Spatial stigma is therefore attributed to individuals and the community as a whole, while the actual stigmatisation becomes a channel through which inequalities are created, deepened and justified (Keene and Padilla 2014). Wacquant (2007) explains the processes which lead to creating and maintaining this phenomenon which is called territorial stigmatisation. The history of ghettos testifies that their origins stem from the segregation of one group of inhabitants in a poorer socioeconomic position, and not only that but that segregation is a form of punishment for all dangerous individuals who are a threat to general societal order. On the other hand, a degraded place, due to, for instance, the collapse of industry, pollution or natural catastrophes, transforms it into a dangerous space, unappealing for life and marked by a stigma of threats, fear and revulsion. This erosion in such places results in communities ceasing to be safe havens for their marginalised and underprivileged members with no possibility of such places becoming a final source of social support for them.

26

A. Opačić

1.3.2.4  Unequal Opportunities Even when there is no intention of further deepening inequalities, it may nonetheless happen due to development tasks which are set for societies and collectives and which are not equally attainable for all due to unequal starting positions. In the current COVID-19 pandemic crisis, the general digitalisation of society has become an imperative, while forgetting or not taking into account that the least developed communities have not yet achieved an adequate level of IT infrastructure. A green economy, active citizenship, entrepreneurship and sustainable development – all of these are tasks for today’s local communities. But do they all have the same chance of succeeding, and to what extent will the gap between those who succeed and those who do not further deepen? Inequality acts corrosively on all societies in which it appears. The disbalance of power as a source of inequality does appear not only between the community and its surroundings but also within it. When inhabitants experience a deficit of social resources, fear and uncertainty appear where subsequently a struggle for modest resources begins. This further undermines trust, social capital, whereupon to retain control of a minority in a deprived community, internal mechanisms of control and coercion are applied. Consequently, deprived communities face social disorganisation when the community becomes an arena in which a struggle for survival begins or it begins identifying with the role of victim in relation to its surroundings. Social disorganisation appears as a breakdown of social structures and processes which retain the stable functioning of society and leading to the breakdown of written and unwritten norms (Hastings and Snowden 2019). External stereotypes are thereby confirmed, and the process of inequality continues. The community becomes a risky place for investments from outside, and every new opportunity in the community is awaited with distrust and scepticism.

1.3.3  R  elying on One’s Own Strength: Internal Development Processes Social work is by far the closest to the third theoretical paradigm of community development regarding its internal development processes, capacities and resilience. This is understandable given that community development in social work is considered primarily a process of strengthening internal capacities and less as an outcome. It is in the spirit of the ethics of social work which promotes the strength and potential of each individual and the collective and self-determination. This theoretical system has a normative character and in essence shows experts in the community how to approach community development. Indirectly, the conclusion is that an unfavourable outcome of community development results from inadequately recognised and activated resources, potential and capacities of the community. Numerous approaches used in practice in the community are actually based on

1  Understanding Deprived Communities at the Global Level: Semantic, Operative…

27

strengthening internal processes of development, such as the asset-based community development model (ABCD), capability approach, community resilience and strength-based approach. Accordingly, Bhattacharyya (2004) described his community development theory, where the concept of solidarity and agency is recognised as its constitutive elements. In other words, community development should be based on strengthening relationships through recognition of common identity traits and belief in common norms, as well as active action and assuming responsibility for development of community actors. Consequently, suitable methods in the community should be self-help, strategic approach to fulfilling needs and participation (Bhattacharyya 2004). Members of the community have a mandate and responsibility to articulate problems and their needs (not presuming in advance the nature of the actual problem), hence even in less developed communities when the problem may appear obvious. Furthermore, stakeholders in the community have the responsibility to undertake creative and profound activities to indeed respond to identified needs. Finally, the community is alive as long as its members are active and participate within it – from formal to informal processes. Given the optimistic spirit of the theory of community development, it comes as no surprise that it has been quickly accepted among numerous experts throughout the world, providing a sense of power and influence by local actors. Regarding the approach directed to internal capacities, in recent years there has been a growing interest in the concept of community resilience. Resilience as a theory and concept is increasingly significant in situations where the community is exposed and vulnerable to ecological risks, natural catastrophes and armed conflicts. Patel et al. (2017) provide a systematic overview of the definition and concept for community resilience by summing the following: resilience is understood to be a process of change and adaptation, the absence of unfavourable or harmful community factors or traits. A community is resilient on account of knowing its inhabitants, networks and quality relationships, effective communication channels, satisfactory health of the inhabitants, quality leadership, activated local resources, economic investments, good-quality preparation and general attitude of the inhabitants. The community expresses its resilience when exposed to numerous, diverse stressors. Community resilience has the capacity to cope with the impact from stressors or mitigate their effects. For some authors, community resilience, even though it may not be able to eliminate the impact of stressors, has the capacity to return to its original functioning or without incurring significant damage adapt to its new circumstances (Norris et al. 2008). The system of theories directed to internal processes is actually based on the theoretical integration of fundamental aspects of what a community is and about which there is a kind of consensus among authors, i.e. the community is a concept which, besides space, comprises structures (and relationships) and its significance attributed to the community, as well as interaction between these dimensions which are always established anew in time (Crow and Allan 1995).

28

A. Opačić

1.4  Conclusion This chapter provides a framework in understanding a deprived community through issues involving meaning and terminology, manner of operationalisation and relevant theoretical frameworks. Deprived communities are a global challenge with multiple facets and occur in a backdrop of complex global, national and local processes. We use the term deprived community as an umbrella term comprising different concepts from scientific literature. The choice of terms is not accidental; hence there is a preference for terminological solutions in particular scientific disciplines and geographic situations. Using a cumulative approach, deprived communities are those who have one of the following traits: they gather a significant number of inhabitants of low socioeconomic status; they have unfavourable developmental outcomes with respect to their surroundings; and they face structurally conditioned obstacles in development, are exposed to serious destructive risks, and create for their inhabitants an unfavourable existential environment with unfavourable power relations within the community as well as between the community and its surroundings. In measuring or operationalisation of deprived communities, a number of approaches have been detected. Some of the terms are specific and used for certain communities in specific contexts and based upon which indicators are defined. These are, for instance, remote communities, ghettos, slums and less favoured areas. However, some of the terms have a generic character and can be used in various contexts throughout the world. Composite measures are most often used which comprise aggregated values at an individual level (income, education, employment, household structure, crime) and somewhat less seldom community-level variables are added (for instance, distance from important centres, availability of services). In measuring deprived communities, objective and outcome indicators prevail. Examples using subjective assessment by inhabitants or indicators of community development in the process sense are less often encountered. Here, emphasis should be placed on the fact that some of these terms are often used as symbols or metaphors and even within the same papers, authors freely interchange terms in order to highlight the impression of a challenged community. Finally, fathoming this phenomenon is impossible without a polyvalent theoretical approach to enable experts of various profiles to provide their contribution. Community deprivation appears in mutual and cyclical interaction in structural conditions – disbalance in the power relations and inadequately managed internal processes. It becomes impossible to deny that for numerous communities an unfavourable geopolitical position greatly impedes developmental opportunities, for which there is no single cause. When a community loses its comparative advantage, it becomes subject to numerous pressures from external centres of power, and also internal tension increases, trust decreases and the struggle for scarce resources begins. A community seeks empowerment to activate the process of local development based on utilisation of resources, participation and cooperation of its members as well as strengthening resilience to successfully cope with internal and external stressors.

1  Understanding Deprived Communities at the Global Level: Semantic, Operative…

29

Since its beginnings, social work has been directed towards helping the individual in his or her surroundings. However, it was soon discovered that this task cannot be fulfilled if there is no focus on the surroundings. Since then, discussions have polemicised from where to start first: the individual or surroundings. This book is primarily for those interested in the aspect of community or environment, but current approaches to understanding deprived communities reveal that this dichotomy is actually artificial. A deprived community in the literature is accepted as an unfavourable environment impeding the life of its members and also a group of individuals in an unfavourable position, spatially segregated and located in the same place. Therefore, in the coming chapters the dialectic connection of these two dimensions will be elaborated. In the second chapter, a specific focus will be given as to what the community as an unfavourable environment can also mean for individual well-being.

References Act on Areas of Special State Concern (Zakon o područjima posebne državne skrbi), Official Gazzette 44/96, 73/00, 88/02, 26/03 86/2008. Act on Regional Development (Zakon o regionalnom razvoju), Official Gazette, 148/09 i 147/14. Adeyemi-Walker, L., Duncan, M., Tallis, J., & Eyre, E. (2018). Fundamental motor skills of children in deprived areas of England: A focus on age, gender and ethnicity. Children, 5(8), 110. https://doi.org/10.3390/children5080110. Algren, M. H., Ekholm, O., van Lenthe, F., Mackenbach, J., Bak, C. K., & Andersen, P. T. (2017). Health-risk behaviour among residents in deprived neighbourhoods compared with those of the general population in Denmark: A cross-sectional study. Health and Place, 45(May), 189–198. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthplace.2017.03.014. Algren, M.  H., Ekholm, O., Nielsen, L., Ersbøll, A.  K., Bak, C.  K., & Andersen, P.  T. (2018). Associations between perceived stress, socioeconomic status, and health-risk behaviour in deprived neighbourhoods in Denmark: A cross-sectional study. BMC Public Health, 18(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-018-5170-x. Alvarado, S.  E. (2016). Delayed disadvantage: Neighborhood context and child development. Social Forces, 94(4), 1847–1877. https://doi.org/10.1093/sf/sow020. Alvarado, S. E. (2018). The impact of childhood neighborhood disadvantage on adult joblessness and income. Social Science Research, 70, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2017.10.004. Bakar, N. A., Malek, N. A., & Mansor, M. (2016). Access to parks and recreational opportunities in urban low-income neighbourhood. Procedia  – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 234, 299–308. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2016.10.246. Barber, S., Hickson, D.  A., Wang, X., Sims, M., Nelson, C., & Diez-Roux, A.  V. (2016). Neighborhood disadvantage, poor social conditions, and cardiovascular disease incidence among African American adults in the Jackson heart study. American Journal of Public Health, 106(12), 2219–2226. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2016.303471. Bertolini, P., Montanari, M., & Peragine, V. (2008). Poverty and social exclusion in rural areas. European Commission, Directorate-General for Employment, Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities. https://ec.europa.eu/social/BlobServlet?docId=2087&langId=en. Accessed 15 Mar 2020. Bhattacharyya, J. (2004). Theorizing community development. Community Development Society Journal, 34(2), 5–34. https://doi.org/10.1080/15575330409490110.

30

A. Opačić

Chen, L.  H. (2019). Do colleges around low income areas accept more low income students? Evidence from California State Universities. Applied Economics Letters, 26(7), 601–603. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504851.2018.1488046. Cheval, B., Rebar, A.  L., Miller, M.  W., Sieber, S., Orsholits, D., Baranyi, G., Courvoisier, D., Cullati, S., Sander, D., Chalabaev, A., & Boisgontier, M. P. (2019). Cognitive resources moderate the adverse impact of poor perceived neighborhood conditions on self-reported physical activity of older adults. Preventive Medicine, 126(April), 105741. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. ypmed.2019.05.029. Child, S. T., Kaczynski, A. T., Fair, M. L., Stowe, E. W., Hughey, S. M., Boeckermann, L., Wills, S., & Reeder, Y. (2019). ‘We need a safe, walkable way to connect our sisters and brothers’: A qualitative study of opportunities and challenges for neighborhood-based physical activity among residents of low-income African-American communities. Ethnicity and Health, 24(4), 353–364. https://doi.org/10.1080/13557858.2017.1351923. Cohen, D. A., Han, B., Park, S., Williamson, S., & Derose, K. P. (2018). Differences in park use and park-based physical activity among residents of low-income neighborhoods by age group and gender. Journal of Aging and Physical Activity, 27(3), 334–342. https://doi.org/10.1123/ japa.2018-0032. Copp, J. E., Giordano, P. C., Manning, W. D., & Longmore, M. A. (2019). Neighborhood norms, disadvantage, and intimate partner violence perpetration. Sociological Forum, 34(3), 594–615. https://doi.org/10.1111/socf.12516. Córdoba Hernández, R., González García, I., & Guerrero Periñán, G. (2018). Urban poverty partnership: Report about urban deprivation/poverty observatories in the European Union. https:// ec.europa.eu/futurium/en/urban-poverty/report-about-urban-deprivationpoverty-observatories-eu-universidad-politecnica-de. Accessed 28 Apr 2020. Accessed 15 Mar 2020. Crow, G. P., & Allan, G. (1995). Community types, community typologies and community time. Time & Society, 4(2), 147–166. https://doi.org/10.1177/0961463X95004002001. Curl, A., & Kearns, A. (2017). Housing improvements, fuel payment difficulties and mental health in deprived communities. International Journal of Housing Policy, 17(3), 417–443. https://doi. org/10.1080/14616718.2016.1248526. Dann, R. (2016). Understanding and enhancing pupils’ learning progress in schools in deprived communities. Education 3–13, 44(1), 19–31. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004279.2015.112231 9. Davalos, E., & Morales, L. F. (2017). Economic crisis promotes fertility decline in poor areas: Evidence from Colombia. Demographic Research, 37(1), 867–888. https://doi.org/10.4054/ DemRes.2017.37.27. De Figueiredo, C. J. J., Sousa Pereira, D. V. E., & de Miranda Mota, C. M. (2016). Classification of vulnerable areas using Dominance-based Rough Set Approach. 2016 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics (SMC). https://doi.org/10.1109/ smc.2016.7844681. DeGuzman, P. B., Cohn, W. F., Camacho, F., Edwards, B. L., Sturz, V. N., & Schroen, A. T. (2017). Impact of urban neighborhood disadvantage on late stage breast cancer diagnosis in Virginia. Journal of Urban Health, 94(2), 199–210. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11524-017-0142-5. Denney, J. T., Kimbro, R. T., & Sharp, G. (2018a). Neighborhoods and food insecurity in households with young children: A disadvantage paradox? Social Problems, 65(3), 342–359. https:// doi.org/10.1093/socpro/spw054. Denney, J. T., Saint Onge, J. M., & Dennis, J. A. (2018b). Neighborhood concentrated disadvantage and adult mortality: Insights for racial and ethnic differences. Population Research and Policy Review, 37(2), 301–321. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11113-018-9461-9. Dennison, C. R., & Swisher, R. R. (2019). Postsecondary education, neighborhood disadvantage, and crime: An examination of life course relative deprivation. Crime and Delinquency, 65(2), 215–238. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011128717753115. Doucet, B., & Koenders, D. (2018). “At least it’s not a ghetto anymore”: Experiencing gentrification and “false choice urbanism” in Rotterdam’s Afrikaanderwijk. Urban Studies, 55(16), 3631–3649. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098018761853.

1  Understanding Deprived Communities at the Global Level: Semantic, Operative…

31

Dulin, A., Risica, P. M., Mello, J., Ahmed, R., Carey, K. B., Cardel, M., Howe, C. J., Nadimpalli, S., & Gans, K. M. (2018). Examining neighborhood and interpersonal norms and social support on fruit and vegetable intake in low-income communities. BMC Public Health, 18(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-018-5356-2. Durfey, S. N. M., Kind, A. J. H., Buckingham, W. R., DuGoff, E. H., & Trivedi, A. N. (2019). Neighborhood disadvantage and chronic disease management. Health Services Research, 54(Suppl 1), 206–216. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6773.13092. European Environment Agency. (1999). Environment in the European Union at the turn of the century. Copenhagen: European Environment Agency. Exeter, D., Zhao, J., Browne, M., & Lee, A. (2016). Towards a new index of multiple area-level deprivation for Auckland, New Zealand. New Zealand Geographer, 72, 92–106. https://doi. org/10.1111/nzg.12112. Finegood, E. D., Wyman, C., O’Connor, T. G., & Blair, C. B. (2017). Salivary cortisol and cognitive development in infants from low-income communities. Stress, 20(1), 112–121. https://doi. org/10.1080/10253890.2017.1286325. Friedline, T., Naraharisetti, S., & Weaver, A. (2019). Digital redlining: Poor rural communities’ access to Fintech and implications for financial inclusion. Journal of Poverty, 24(2), 168–192. https://doi.org/10.1080/10875549.2019.1695162. Gans, H. (2008). Involuntary segregation and the ghetto: Disconnecting process and place. City & Community, 7(4), 353–357. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6040.2008.00271_2.x. Garthe, R. C., Gorman-Smith, D., Gregory, J., & Schoeny, E. (2018). Neighborhood concentrated disadvantage and dating violence among urban adolescents: The mediating role of neighborhood social processes. American Journal of Community Psychology, 61(3–4), 310–320. https:// doi.org/10.1002/ajcp.12239. Goldstein, R.  B., Lee, A.  K., Haynie, D.  L., Luk, J.  W., Fairman, B.  J., Liu, D., Jeffers, J.  S., Simons-Morton, B. G., & Gilman, S. E. (2019). Neighbourhood disadvantage and depressive symptoms among adolescents followed into emerging adulthood. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 73(7), 590–597. https://doi.org/10.1136/jech-2018-212004. Gottero, E. (2019). Identifying vulnerable farmland: An index to capture high urbanisation risk areas. Ecological Indicators, 98, 61–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2018.10.037. Gubbels, J. S., Kremers, S. P. J., Droomers, M., Hoefnagels, C., Stronks, K., Hosman, C., & de Vries, S. (2016). The impact of greenery on physical activity and mental health of adolescent and adult residents of deprived neighborhoods: A longitudinal study. Health and Place, 40, 153–160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthplace.2016.06.002. Hastings, J.  F., & Snowden, L.  R. (2019). African Americans and Caribbean blacks: Perceived neighborhood disadvantage and depression. Journal of Community Psychology, 47(2), 227– 237. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcop.22117. Hugo Centre for Population and Housing at the University of Adelaide. (2020). Accessibility/ remoteness index of Australia (Aria) https://www.adelaide.edu.au/hugo-centre/services/ aria#example-aria-calculation. Accessed 28 Apr 2020. Joury, E., Bernabe, E., Gallagher, J.  E., & Marcenes, W. (2018). Burden of orofacial pain in a socially deprived and culturally diverse area of the United Kingdom. Pain, 59(7), 1235–1243. https://doi.org/10.1097/j.pain.0000000000001203. Kaly, U.L., Pratt, C.R., & Mitchell, J. (2004). The demonstration Environmental Vulnerability Index (EVI) SOPAC technical report 384, 323. http://islands.unep.ch/EVI%202004%20 Technical%20Report.pdf. Accessed 31 Mar 2020. Kane, J. B., Miles, G., Yourkavitch, J., & King, K. (2017). Neighborhood context and birth outcomes: Going beyond neighborhood disadvantage, incorporating affluence. SSM – Population Health, 3, 699–712. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssmph.2017.08.003. Kearns, A., & Mason, P. (2018). Entering and leaving employment in deprived neighbourhoods undergoing area regeneration. Local Economy, 33(5), 537–561. https://doi. org/10.1177/0269094218795595. Keene, D. E., & Padilla, M. B. (2014). Spatial stigma and health inequality. Critical Public Health, 24(4), 392–404. https://doi.org/10.1080/09581596.2013.873532.

32

A. Opačić

Kim, H. G., Lee, D. K., Jung, H., Kil, S.-H., Park, J. H., Park, C., Tanaka, R., Seo, C., Kim, H., Kong, W., Oh, K., Choi, J., Oh, Y., Hwang, G., & Song, C.-K. (2016). Finding key vulnerable areas by a climate change vulnerability assessment. Natural Hazards, 81(3), 1683–1732. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-016-2151-1. Kleinepier, T., & van Ham, M. (2018). The temporal dynamics of neighborhood disadvantage in childhood and subsequent problem behavior in adolescence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 47(8), 1611–1628. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-018-0878-6. Knudsen, A. J. (2016). Camp, ghetto, zinco, slum: Lebanon’s transitional zones of emplacement. Humanity: An International Journal of Human Rights, Humanitarianism, and Development, 7(3), 443–457. https://doi.org/10.1353/hum.2016.0025. Kuffer, M., Orina, F., Sliuzas, R., & Taubenbock, H. (2017). Spatial patterns of slums: Comparing African and Asian cities. 2017 Joint Urban Remote Sensing Event (JURSE). https://doi. org/10.1109/jurse.2017.7924587. Kulakowski, K. (2006). Cooperation and defection in ghetto. International Journal of Modern Physics, 17(2), 287–298. https://doi.org/10.1142/S0129183106009151. Kumar, S., Raizada, A., Biswas, H., Srinivas, S., & Mondal, B. (2016). Application of indicators for identifying climate change vulnerable areas in semi-arid regions of India. Ecological Indicators, 70, 507–517. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2016.06.041. LaValley, S. A., Vest, B. M., & Hall, V. (2019). Challenges to and strategies for formal service utilization among caregivers in an underserved community. Journal of Gerontological Social Work, 62(1), 108–122. https://doi.org/10.1080/01634372.2018.1542372. Lee, R. E., Kim, Y., & Cubbin, C. (2018). Residence in unsafe neighborhoods is associated with active transportation among poor women: Geographic Research on Wellbeing (GROW) Study. Journal of Transport and Health, 9, 64–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jth.2018.01.001. Lees, L., Slater, T., & Wyly, E. (2008). Gentrification. London/New York: Routledge. Lei, M. K., Simons, R. L., Beach, S., & Philibert, R. A. (2019). Neighborhood disadvantage and biological aging: Using marginal structural models to assess the link between neighborhood census variables and epigenetic aging. The Journals of Gerontology. Series B, Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 74(7), e50–e59. https://doi.org/10.1093/geronb/gbx015. Levy, B. L., Owens, A., & Sampson, R. J. (2019). The varying effects of neighborhood disadvantage on college graduation: Moderating and mediating mechanisms. Sociology of Education, 92(3), 269–292. https://doi.org/10.1177/0038040719850146. Lilford, R., Kyobutungi, C., Ndugwa, R., Sartori, J., Watson, S. I., Sliuzas, R., Kuffer, M., Hofer, T., de Albuquerque, J. P., & Ezeh, A. (2019). Because space matters: Conceptual framework to help distinguish slum from non-slum urban areas. BMJ Global Health, 4(2), e001267. https:// doi.org/10.1136/bmjgh-2018-001267. Loh, V. H. Y., Rachele, J. N., Brown, W. J., Washington, S., & Turrell, G. (2016). Neighborhood disadvantage, individual-level socioeconomic position and physical function: A crosssectional multilevel analysis. Preventive Medicine, 89, 112–120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. ypmed.2016.05.007. Loh, V. H. Y., Rachele, J. N., Brown, W. J., Ghani, F., & Turrell, G. (2018). Neighborhood disadvantage and physical function: The contributions of neighborhood-level perceptions of safety from crime and walking for recreation. Journal of Physical Activity and Health, 15(8), 553– 563. https://doi.org/10.1123/jpah.2017-0423. Luan, H., Minaker, L. M., & Law, J. (2016). Do marginalized neighbourhoods have less healthy retail food environments? An analysis using Bayesian spatial latent factor and hurdle models. International Journal of Health Geographics, 15(1), 29. https://doi.org/10.1186/ s12942-016-0060-x. Lukić, A., Opačić, V. T., & Zupanc, I. (2009). The other side of the Zagreb – Rijeka motorway: Socio-geographic implications in the rural periphery of Croatia. Društvena Istraživanja (Journal for General Social Issues), 18(1–2), 153–173. Madsen, K. A., Falbe, J., Olgin, G., Ibarra-Castro, A., & Rojas, N. (2019). Purchasing patterns in low-income neighbourhoods: Implications for studying sugar-sweetened beverage taxes. Public Health Nutrition, 22(10), 1807–1814. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1368980019000375.

1  Understanding Deprived Communities at the Global Level: Semantic, Operative…

33

Maguire-Jack, K., & Font, S. A. (2017). Intersections of individual and neighborhood disadvantage: Implications for child maltreatment. Children and Youth Services Review, 72, 44–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2016.10.015. Martin, P., Consalès, J.  N., Scheromm, P., Marchand, P., Ghestem, F., & Darmon, N. (2017). Community gardening in poor neighborhoods in France: A way to re-think food practices? Appetite, 116, 589–598. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2017.05.023. Mason, P., Curl, A., & Kearns, A. (2016). Domains and levels of physical activity are linked to adult mental health and wellbeing in deprived neighbourhoods: A cross-sectional study. Mental Health and Physical Activity, 11, 19–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mhpa.2016.07.001. McDaid, L., Hunt, K., McMillan, L., Russell, S., Milne, D., Ilett, R., & Lorimer, K. (2019). Absence of holistic sexual health understandings among men and women in deprived areas of Scotland: Qualitative study. BMC Public Health, 19(1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-019-6558-y. Monson, A. (1955). Slums, semi-slums, and super-slums. Marriage and Family Living, 17(2), 118–122. Mugoya, G. C. T., Witte, T., Bolland, A., Tomek, S., Hooper, L. M., Bolland, J., & George Dalmida, S. (2017). Depression and intimate partner violence among African American women living in impoverished inner-city neighborhoods. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 35(3–4), 899–923. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260517691519. Müller, I., Yap, P., Steinmann, P., Damons, B. P., Schindler, C., Seelig, H., Htun, N. S. N., ProbstHensch, N., Gerber, M., Du Randt, R., Pühse, U., Walter, C., & Utzinger, J. (2016). Intestinal parasites, growth and physical fitness of schoolchildren in poor neighbourhoods of Port Elizabeth, South Africa: A cross-sectional survey. Parasites & Vectors, 9(1), 1–13. https://doi. org/10.1186/s13071-016-1761-5. Nakaya, T., Honjo, K., Hanibuchi, T., Ikeda, A., Iso, H., Inoue, M., Sawada, N., Tsugane, S., & Japan Public Health Center-based Prospective Study Group. (2014). Associations of allcause mortality with census-based neighbourhood deprivation and population density in Japan: A multilevel survival analysis. PLoS One, 9(6), e97802. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal. pone.0097802. Nijman, J. (2010). A study of space in Mumbai’s slums. Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie, 101(1), 4–17. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9663.2009.00576.x. Noelke, C., McArdle, N., Baek, M., Huntington, N., Huber, R., Hardy, E., & Acevedo-Garcia, D. (2020). Child opportunity index 2.0 technical documentation. http://data.diversitydatakids.org/ dataset/coi20-child-opportunity-index-2-0-database. Accessed 28 Mar 2020. Noguera, J., et  al. (2017). Inner peripheries: National territories facing challenges of access to basic services of general interest. Final report. https://www.espon.eu/inner-peripheries, Accessed 01 Feb 2020. Norris, F., Stevens, S., Pfefferbaum, B., Wyche, K., & Pfefferbaum, R. (2008). Community resilience as a metaphor, theory, set of capacities, and strategy for disaster readiness. American Journal of Community Psychology, 41, 127–150. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10464-007-9156-6. Owens, A., & Candipan, J. (2019). Social and spatial inequalities of educational opportunity: A portrait of schools serving high- and low-income neighbourhoods in US metropolitan areas. Urban Studies, 56(15), 3178–3197. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098018815049. Patel, S. S., Rogers, M. B., Amlôt, R., & Rubin, G. J. (2017). What do we mean by ‘community resilience’? A systematic literature review of how it is defined in the literature. PLoS Currents, 9, ecurrents.dis.db775aff25efc5ac4f0660ad9c9f7db2. https://doi.org/10.1371/currents.dis. db775aff25efc5ac4f0660ad9c9f7db2. Povinelli, E.  A. (2018). Driving across settler late liberalism: Indigenous ghettos, slums and camps. Ethnos, 84(1), 113–123. https://doi.org/10.1080/00141844.2018.1487988. Prakash, R., Beattie, T., Javalkar, P., Bhattacharjee, P., Ramanaik, S., Thalinja, R., Murthy, S., Davey, C., Blanchard, J., Watts, C., Col-lumbien, M., Moses, S., Hesie, L., & Isac, S. (2017). Correlates of school dropout and absenteeism among adolescent girls from marginalized community in North Karnataka, South India. Journal of Adolescence, 61, 64–76. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2017.09.007.

34

A. Opačić

Rachele, J. N., Kavanagh, A. M., Brown, W. J., Healy, A. M., & Turrell, G. (2018). Neighborhood disadvantage and body mass index: A study of residential relocation. American Journal of Epidemiology, 187(8), 1696–1703. https://doi.org/10.1093/aje/kwx390. Ramirez, S. M. (2012). Poverty and the rural slum. American Journal of Public Health, 102(9), 1664–1675. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2011.300864. Ramírez-Vélez, R., Correa-Bautista, J.  E., Ramos-Sepúlveda, J.  A., Piñeros-Álvarez, C.  A., Giraldo, L. I., Izquierdo, M., García-Hermoso, A., Rodríguez-Rodríguez, F., & Cristi-Montero, C. (2017). Aerobic capacity and future cardiovascular risk in Indian community from a low-income area in Cauca, Colombia. Italian Journal of Pediatrics, 43(1), 1–8. https://doi. org/10.1186/s13052-017-0347-y. Reboussin, B. A., Milam, A. J., Green, K. M., Ialongo, N. S., & Furr-Holden, C. D. M. (2016). Clustering of black adolescent marijuana use in low-income, urban neighborhoods. Journal of Urban Health, 93(1), 109–116. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11524-015-0014-9. Roberts, H., Kellar, I., Conner, M., Gidlow, C., Kelly, B., Nieuwenhuijsen, M., & McEachan, R. (2019). Associations between park features, park satisfaction and park use in a multi-ethnic deprived urban area. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 46, 126485. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. ufug.2019.126485. Roe, J., Aspinall, P. A., & Thompson, C. W. (2016). Understanding relationships between health, ethnicity, place and the role of urban green space in deprived urban communities. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 13(7), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.3390/ ijerph13070681. Roe, J. J., Aspinall, P. A., & Ward Thompson, C. (2017). Coping with stress in deprived urban neighborhoods: What is the role of green space according to life stage? Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 1760. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01760. Rosenfeld, S. (2002). Creating smart systems. A guide to cluster strategies in less favoured regions. European Union-regional innovation strategies. Carrboro: Regional Technology Strategies. Salmi, H., Kuisma, M., Rahiala, E., Lääperi, M., & Harve-Rytsälä, H. (2018). Children in disadvantaged neighbourhoods have more out-of-hospital emergencies: A population-based study. Archives of Disease in Childhood, 103(11), 1048–1053. https://doi.org/10.1136/ archdischild-2017-314153. Satariano, B. (2019). Diverse socioeconomic processes influencing health and wellbeing across generations in deprived neighbourhoods in Malta. Social Science & Medicine (1982), 232, 453–459. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2018.09.033. Slain, K. N., Shein, S. L., Stormorken, A. G., Broberg, M. C. G., & Rotta, A. T. (2018). Outcomes of children with critical bronchiolitis living in poor communities. Clinical Pediatrics, 57(9), 1027–1032. https://doi.org/10.1177/0009922817740666. Smit, S., Musango, J. K., Kovacic, Z., & Brent, A. C. (2017). Conceptualising slum in an urban African context. Cities, 62, 107–119. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2016.12.018. Statistics Canada. (2020). Index of remoteness. https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/17-260001/172600012020001-eng.htm. Accessed 28 Apr 2020. Stattin, H., Svensson, Y., & Korol, L. (2019). Schools can be supporting environments in disadvantaged neighborhoods. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 43(5), 383–392. https://doi.org/10.1177/0165025419833824. Tabuchi, T., Fujihara, S., Shinozaki, T., & Fukuhara, H. (2018). Determinants of high-school dropout: A longitudinal study in a deprived area of Japan. Journal of Epidemiology, 28(11), 458–464. https://doi.org/10.2188/jea.JE20170163. Tanggaard Andersen, P., Holst Algren, M., Fromsejer Heiberg, R., Joshi, R., & Kronborg Bak, C. (2018). Social network resources and self-rated health in a deprived Danish neighborhood. Health Promotion International, 33(6), 999–1009. https://doi.org/10.1093/heapro/dax051. Tillyer, M.  S., & Walter, R.  J. (2019). Low-income housing and crime: The influence of housing development and neighborhood characteristics. Crime and Delinquency, 65(7), 969–993. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011128718794185.

1  Understanding Deprived Communities at the Global Level: Semantic, Operative…

35

Trapl, E. S., Pike, S. N., Borawski, E., Flocke, S. A., Freedman, D. A., Walsh, C. C., Schneider, C.  B. A., & Yoder, L.  M. P.  H. (2017). Food melt in consumer food environments in lowincome urban neighborhoods. American Journal of Health Behavior, 41(6), 710–718. https:// doi.org/10.5993/AJHB.41.6.5. Troxel, W.  M., Shih, R.  A., Ewing, B., Tucker, J.  S., Nugroho, A., & D’Amico, E.  J. (2017). Examination of neighborhood disadvantage and sleep in a multi-ethnic cohort of adolescents. Health and Place, 45, 39–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthplace.2017.03.002. United Nations Human Settlement Program. (2007). State of the world’s cities 2006/2007. UN-Habitat. http://www.unhabitat.org/pmss/listitemdetails.aspx?publicationID=2101. Accessed 31 Mar 2020. United Nations Statistics Division. (2020). 11 sustainable cities and communities. https://unstats. un.org/sdgs/report/2018/goal-11/. Accessed 30 Apr 2020. van der Greft, S., & Droogleever Fortuijn, J. (2017). Multiple disadvantage of older migrants and native Dutch older adults in deprived neighbourhoods in Amsterdam, the Netherlands: A life course perspective. GeoJournal, 82(3), 415–432. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10708-015-9691-x. Vogel, M., & South, S. J. (2016). Spatial dimensions of the effect of neighborhood disadvantage on delinquency. Criminology, 54(3), 434–458. https://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9125.12110. Wacquant, L. (2007). Territorial stigmatization in the age of advanced marginality. Thesis Eleven, 91(1), 66–77. https://doi.org/10.1177/0725513607082003. Wacquant, L. (2015). Ghetto. In J.  D. Wright (Ed.), International encyclopaedia of the social & behavioral sciences (2nd ed., pp.  121–126). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/ B978-0-08-097086-8.12233-0. Wang, Y., Zhou, H., Zhang, Y., Huang, X., Yang, Y., Liu, X., Yang, C., & Wang, A. (2018). Double burden of malnutrition among children under 5 in poor areas of China. PLoS One, 13(9), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0204142. Watts, P., Hayee Shahid, M., Bertotti, M., & Tobi, P. (2017). Social, cognitive, behavioural and neighbourhood characteristics associated with sedentary time in men and women living in deprived neighbourhoods. European Journal of Sport Science, 17(7), 904–912. https://doi.org /10.1080/17461391.2017.1323951. Yousuf Hussein, S., Swanepoel, D. W., Mahomed-Asmail, F., & de Jager, L. B. (2018). Hearing loss in preschool children from a low income South African community. International Journal of Pediatric Otorhinolaryngology, 115(September), 145–148. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. ijporl.2018.09.032. Yun, I., & Lee, J. (2016). Neighborhood disadvantage and parenting: Behavioral genetics evidence of child effects. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 60(13), 1549–1568. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X15581451. Zaman, T. U., Goswami, H. D., & Hassan, Y. (2018). The impact of growth and development of slums on the health status and health awareness of slum dwellers. International Journal of Medical Research & Health Sciences, 7(3), 55–65. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.11040.07689. Zygmunt, A., Kendall, C. E., James, P., Lima, I., Tuna, M., & Tanuseputro, P. (2019). Avoidable mortality rates decrease but inequity gaps widen for marginalized neighborhoods: A population-based analysis in Ontario, Canada from 1993 to 2014. Journal of Community Health, 45(3), 579–597. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10900-019-00778-8.

Chapter 2

Effects of Living in Disadvantaged Neighbourhoods on Personal Well-Being Ana Opačić

2.1  Neighbourhood Effect in Disadvantaged Neighbourhoods What does living in a disadvantaged neighbourhood mean? Extensive research literature indicates that living in a disadvantaged neighbourhood leads to numerous and various consequences on the well-being and quality of life for inhabitants. This topic has been addressed over the last 30 years in extensive theoretical and research literature relating to the concept of the neighbourhood effect. Certainly, in the history of social sciences, investigating the relationship between the surroundings and the individual dates back long ago when at the start of the twentieth century, the Chicago sociological school was probably the first to show the effects and processes of life in disadvantaged urban neighbourhoods. In recent times, the theoretical framework behind the neighbourhood effect has most often been used in explaining the relationship between individual well-being and conditions prevailing in the immediate neighbourhood surroundings and the community, as well as urban and rural areas. The neighbourhood effect is a multidimensional concept comprising socio-interactive, environmental, geographical and institutional mechanisms which have a cumulative effect on the well-being and life outcomes of inhabitants (Galster 2012). These social and interactive mechanisms include effects stemming from socialisation in specific contexts in which attitudes, values and lifestyles are adopted, as well as relationships within communities, thus providing social networks, cohesion and social capital incorporating a certain level of trust. Experiencing relative disadvantage is especially significant in that inhabitants make comparisons among themselves within relatively poorly developed communities. Environmental mechanisms refer to exposure to ecological risks which ordinarily are more common in disadvantaged neighbourhoods, the condition of the A. Opačić (*) Faculty of Law, Department of Social Work, University of Zagreb, Zagreb, Croatia e-mail: [email protected]

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 A. Opačić (ed.), Practicing Social Work in Deprived Communities, European Social Work Education and Practice, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-65987-5_2

37

38

A. Opačić

physical environment and level of violence occurring on the streets. Geographical mechanisms refer primarily to a community’s position with respect to the location where central functions take places, i.e. the extent to which necessary public services are accessible. Institutional mechanisms include local stakeholders who make important decisions regarding development of a community, including the level of political decision-making, non-profit sector and also economic entities (Galster 2012). The theory behind the neighbourhood effect testifies that the relationship between a community’s level of development and its acting mechanisms as well as the well-­ being of individuals is not clearly linear. It involves a dynamic process where time variables play an exceptionally important role. Specifically, how long an individual lives in a disadvantaged neighbourhood is not irrelevant, nor the period of life in which they live there, or whether the person migrated from more or less developed neighbourhoods, and finally the individual’s social status with respect to others living in the same surroundings. The chapter presents all dimensions stemming from the quality of life in disadvantaged neighbourhoods that leave consequences on the well-being of its inhabitants. The presentation is based on an analysis of scientific papers published over the last 5 years and accessible in the database Web of Science. Part of the research findings were obtained by direct comparison of individual variables between disadvantaged and advantaged neighbourhoods, whereas some of the research refers only to samples in disadvantaged neighbourhoods, with the results compared between national and international data. Special emphasis is placed on research that indicates the existence of groups of inhabitants with additional risk within disadvantaged neighbourhoods which highlights the problems of multiple disadvantages and the dynamic relationship of neighbourhood effects on individual outcomes. The chapter covers unfavourable structural conditions (ecological, infrastructural and violence in the communities), including neighbourhood effects on social and economic status, family relationships, physical health, mental health, lifestyle and later opportunities in life for children who grow up in disadvantaged neighbourhoods.

2.2  U  nfavourable Structural Conditions in Neighbourhoods Affecting the Well-Being of Inhabitants: Ecological Risks, Infrastructure and Violence in Neighbourhoods Disadvantaged neighbourhoods are often characterised by certain aggravating structural factors affecting all other aspects of the quality of life for inhabitants, from physical health, mental health, social and economic conditions to opportunities later in life. Deprived neighbourhoods are often exposed to various ecological risks, from natural catastrophes to high levels of pollution (Egondi et al. 2016; Morelli et al.

2  Effects of Living in Disadvantaged Neighbourhoods on Personal Well-Being

39

2017). Another ecological risk exerting a particular threat to disadvantaged neighbourhoods involves climate change. Qualitative research by Althor et al. (2018) in fascinating floating villages on the Tonle Sap Lake in Cambodia shows that fishermen recognise these specific risks. This involves risks posed by droughts, leading to further pollution, with fishermen estimating that the fish fund is reduced by 30–90% based on species, where some fish species have almost disappeared. Climate change, besides leading to natural catastrophes, also results in endangering basic agricultural and fishery activities which are a key source of income for inhabitants and meeting their basic needs. Chakraborty et  al. (2019) identified another unfavourable effect of global warming and growing cities, and it relates to the phenomenon of unequal heating of cities. This specifically refers to less developed neighbourhoods, especially in cities in which there is a clear segregation area for inhabitants from the same social and economic status (as is the case in Brazil, the United States or South Africa), with a larger exposure to the urban heat island effect and greater temperatures in such neighbourhoods exceeding those in its surroundings. Authors call this phenomenon hidden inequalities. Some underdeveloped communities face the threat of ecological catastrophes. Studies undertaken in poor coastal communities in Indonesia (Esteban et al. 2017) show that inhabitants are also aware of the risks from natural catastrophes, with 85.5% of them having such experience, and a majority (54%) have experienced serious consequences. Inhabitants mostly fear floods and earthquakes; however, they are also uncertain about conducting evacuations in the event of a tsunami or typhoon. The poorer communities carry a greater burden posed by pollution. Research conducted by authors Chakraborti and Margolis (2017) in Mexico showed that poorer neighbourhoods experience a greater level of water pollution and the release of poisonous waste into the environment, with Mendes et al. (2019) also providing a similar conclusion. Finally, it should be said that some of the ecological risks are linked to earlier identified social disorganisation of communities and inadequate capacities in local structures to nurture community development, thereby reducing its resilience. Ronchi and Arcidiacono (2018) performed research in the Brazilian favela Rocinha which is the largest South American favela, in which unregulated construction and a total absence of urban planning is the source of numerous other risks. Specifically, the occurrence of landslides and floods faced by more than 100,000 inhabitants poses unforeseen consequences. Due to the inadequate management of natural resources, the population in some underdeveloped communities may encounter serious barriers to actively utilising their natural assets. For instance, a German study by Buck et al. (2019) identifies a negative relationship between neighbourhood disadvantage and the quality of playfields. In all, 271 playfields in Mannheim were analysed. Results indicate that playfields in disadvantaged neighbourhoods have lower results across all indicators of attractiveness, including the level of development and safety. Life in deprived communities is often a challenge in terms of inadequately developed infrastructure. Hall (2019) reported research findings on remote native Australian communities in which there were water supply problems, insufficient

40

A. Opačić

water in inland Australia and pollution of water sources. There was also the problem of insufficient sanitary infrastructure, i.e. no sewage network. The inhabitants also pointed out problems relating to state-of-the-art technological solutions for which they had received inadequate training. An increasing number of inhabitants also leads to additional pressure due to increasing quantities of wastewater if communal infrastructure fails to keep up with such increasing requirements. Concerning households, unfavourable living conditions relate to overcrowded households, and some native communities ordinarily nurture a collective lifestyle creating further problems associated with hygiene. In communities in which infrastructure is just only being introduced, the inhabitants are inadequately equipped with household appliances, meaning that they are unable to utilise improved infrastructure even if it exists. Disadvantaged communities often do not have transport or spatial access to important regional centres, or connectivity is poor within them. Transport in underdeveloped communities is often a ‘dangerous sport’, on account of undeveloped infrastructure or social disorganisation and violated social norms. Lin et al. (2019) analysed literature and identified a series of risks for pedestrians in underdeveloped communities, resulting in a greater number of fatal injuries. Having reviewed the literature, the authors discovered that the greatest risks exist in densely populated, poor areas with a high proportion of ethnic minority communities and a high level of unemployment. The risk factors include poor road infrastructure, wider roads with higher permitted speeds, lighting and position of intersections as well as unsuitable or inadequately marked places for crossing roads. Another important factor is the location of basic services in the community with respect to the main thoroughfares. Certain markings also contribute to pedestrian accidents. This leads to accidents involving older inhabitants, men, young drivers and the use of drugs. To overcome limitations in transportation, especially if involving remote communities where traditional public transport is simply not economically feasible, alternative models are then developed (sharing of cars and bikes, taxi services and other forms and aided by numerous applications). Dillahunt and Veinot (2018) discovered that inhabitants have certain obstacles on account of which they are unable to utilise such models. This includes, for instance, high costs associated with car ownership and generally financial limitations, inadequate personal capacities and knowledge (for instance, not possessing a driver’s licence, lacking digital literacy), inadequate trust and networking within the neighbourhood for the purpose of car sharing (especially in neighbourhoods with a high crime level), inadequately developed road or digital infrastructure, unreliable service providers and limiting services only to certain parts of a neighbourhood or group of inhabitants, as well as an inadequate balance between user needs and their physical abilities to utilise certain forms of transportation. Undeveloped infrastructure may also lead to a certain paradox where the costs of living in undeveloped communities are not lower than in developed communities, and may even be greater, such as transport costs (AcevedoGarcia et al. 2016).

2  Effects of Living in Disadvantaged Neighbourhoods on Personal Well-Being

41

Internet and the digitalisation of societies facilitate overcoming numerous obstacles, and underdeveloped communities may indeed have much usefulness of such technologies. On the other hand, these technologies may deepen inequality given that well-developed Internet networks and digital technologies are lacking in poor rural communities (Chiaraviglio et al. 2017; Friedline et al. 2019). The same authors also pointed out the existence of ethnic differences; hence, interestingly enough, poor rural communities with dominantly white inhabitants in fact have better, quality Internet than richer rural communities with black inhabitants (Friedline et al. 2019). Many risks of living in disadvantaged neighbourhoods are linked not so much to their ‘hardware’ but instead ‘software’, i.e. community relationships defining the actual community. The most corrosive element of living together in disadvantaged neighbourhoods is certainly violence resulting from social disorganisation. Research performed by Tillyer and Walter (2019) in San Antonio, Texas, USA, showed that there exists a high concentration of criminals in certain neighbourhoods, where 72% of all crimes are committed by only 5% of the neighbourhood. Crimes linked to drug use remain concentrated within the neighbourhood, with 5% of the neighbourhood committing 87% of all crimes. Neighbourhoods with higher levels of underdevelopment, i.e. neighbourhood concentrated disadvantaged, have significantly higher levels of violence, drug abuse and crimes involving other people’s property. Violence and a general lack of safety in a community contribute to the fact that inhabitants spend less time in the actual neighbourhood. Research conducted by Vaughan et  al. (2018) in Pittsburgh showed that 82.4% of respondents visited a green area last month, but only 8.5% of them entered parks in their neighbourhood of low-income communities. The reasons for this result are based on the fact that parks in low-income communities have a high percentage of aggravated assaults, domestic violence, murders, public drunkenness and assault using weapons. The culture of violence on streets and experiencing relative disadvantages leave a mark on socialisation of the youth. Hence it comes as no surprise that delinquent behaviour among the young appears proportionally more in disadvantaged neighbourhoods. Dutch research by Kleinepier and van Ham (2018) highlighted an important aspect when investigating the link between delinquency and neighbourhood disadvantage. It involves the duration and timing of exposure to neighbourhood disadvantage, i.e. an individual trajectory has a significant effect on the behaviour of youth. Youth were divided into seven clusters, depending on whether they had spent their entire life in a disadvantaged, medium-income or rich neighbourhood and how they changed their place of residence in adolescence, i.e. whether they moved into a high or less developed neighbourhood. The results showed that children who began living in disadvantaged neighbourhoods during adolescence had a higher risk of delinquent behaviour, whereas those living their entire life in disadvantaged neighbourhoods had a somewhat higher risk compared to other clusters of children. The National Longitudinal Survey of Youth in the United States (Vogel and South 2016) showed similar results using a sample of 6491 persons. The study showed that the actual level of neighbourhood disadvantage does not play a particular role

42

A. Opačić

in delinquency levels in youth, and the effect disappears when including individual factors. However, delinquent behaviour impacts the level of development in a neighbourhood with respect to surrounding neighbourhoods based on the theory of relative deprivation. Youth are less delinquent when there is a less developed neighbourhood in their surroundings, i.e. they are more often delinquent when living in a neighbourhood which is less developed with respect to surrounding neighbourhoods. Swedish research by Stattin et al. (2019) showed that based on statements from youth in developed and underdeveloped neighbourhoods, there is no difference in delinquent behaviour in schools, but youth in disadvantaged neighbourhoods said they had experienced more threats in their actual neighbourhood than their peers, i.e. youth in advantaged neighbourhoods. Given that youth living in disadvantaged neighbourhoods perceive threats and lack of support, they describe school to a great extent as a safe refuge, and compared to youth in advantaged neighbourhoods, they perceive school as relatively safe and supporting and that they have more influence in a school setting than at home. This link has been especially verified among young immigrants as possibly multiply deprived group.

2.3  S  ocioeconomic Status, Well-Being of Inhabitants and Quality of Family Relationships in Disadvantaged Communities Aggravating structural conditions leave the most obvious consequences on the socioeconomic status of inhabitants. Disadvantaged communities most often have a concentration of inhabitants with a lower level of education and lower income, face less opportunities on the labour market and reside in inappropriate conditions. Shuhong et al. (2019) conducted research into 1300 agricultural households in the poor Chinese region of Liupan Mountain. Based on rates of multidimensional ­poverty, which includes dimensions such as income, health, education, living standards and certain disposable assets, the poverty rates are 24% for three dimensions, 18% for four, 12% for five and 6.1% for six. Households with a greater number of members face an increased risk of poverty, including those households with a greater number of members dependent on others, lower level of education and poorer health. Khalequzzaman et  al. (2017) conducted population research in the slums of Dhaka, Bangladesh (8604 households and 34,170 inhabitants), in which the households on average had four members and almost 60% of them had unsuitable living conditions. Specifically, 30% of households lived in apartments with thin roofs and earth floors, while 31% of residences had hay walls, or the walls were made of bamboo. In all, 61% of inhabitants were low-income-ranked inhabitants, and only 28% of them had completed high school or college. Only 26% of adults were employed, and 19% were daily hired labourers, and 16% were self-employed. A particular

2  Effects of Living in Disadvantaged Neighbourhoods on Personal Well-Being

43

problem is the level of health illiteracy, where 70–90% were unaware that they suffer from hypertension, diabetes and heart disease or that they had suffered a heart attack. Research conducted by Wang et al. (2019) showed that just living in an underdeveloped community does not unequivocally lead to lower well-being or lower satisfaction by the inhabitants. Specifically, this is also contributed by one’s own income with respect to incomes in one’s surroundings based on social comparison theory. More favourable assessments are given by inhabitants with higher incomes if, on average, they live in low-income surroundings. On the other hand, the results of research conducted by Huyer-May et al. (2018) on children in Germany show again that, based on social comparison theory, children who grow up in more developed neighbourhoods, though living in poorer families, will assess their material status as being better. In disadvantaged neighbourhoods, not all inhabitants belong to the same status, with some groups facing multiple challenges. Qualitative research conducted by van der Greft and Droogleever Fortuijn (2017), on a sample of older persons living in disadvantaged neighbourhoods, showed that older migrants who did not come from other western countries have a similar level of general physical condition as the domicile population of the Netherlands but underwent more serious health difficulties and functional limitations earlier in life. However, the domicile population in the Netherlands exhibits a greater level of negative consequences of living in a disadvantaged neighbourhood. Given that low-income communities are often a form of ethnic segregation, and unfavourable effects can be attributed to them instead of neighbourhood characteristics, Galster and Santiago (2017) identified in their research that ethnic segregation is not a factor leading to lower existential opportunities for African American or Latino children. Instead, two other relevant factors from more poorly developed neighbourhoods have an impact: the rate of property crime and a greater proportion of persons who are employed but are more poorly paid or have lower status jobs. Higher rates of property crime are linked to higher rates of asthma conditions, witnessing or experiencing violence, repeating school years (for African Americans) and a higher risk of committing violence, dropping out from school and having children outside of marriage (Latino group). A larger proportion of workers in low-paid jobs is linked to a greater probability of getting asthma, witnessing violence, dropping out of school and having children outside of marriage (African Americans), including a greater likelihood of experiencing violence, committing violence, dropping out of school and having children outside of marriage (Latino inhabitants). Research into 541 households in 23 slums of Calcutta (De and Nag 2016) showed the distribution of poverty in various ethnic groups. The lowest status is attributed to Muslim households and households in lower or backward castes. Moreover, poverty is more prevalent in households with children, but these households also have better sanitary infrastructure. However, socio-political reasons further deepen inequality and access to basic services.

44

A. Opačić

Economic stress, social disorganisation and poor living conditions increase the risk of domestic violence and partner violence. Regarding partner violence, Garthe et  al. (2018) discovered a connection between neighbourhood disadvantage and intimate partner violence including victimisation, where further analysis indicated that this connection stems from less informal social control which is less present in disadvantaged neighbourhoods. This finding testifies to the consequences of social disorganisation in disadvantaged neighbourhoods. A similar conclusion was drawn from the results of research conducted by Copp et al. (2019) who did not find a connection between development of neighbourhoods and intimate partner violence but discovered that violence increases with increasing neighbourhood levels of subjective disorder. Regarding the family situation, the risk of violence against children does exist, but it involves a complex and dynamic connection. Research into two poorly developed Brazilian neighbourhoods indicated a relatively high prevalence of heavy verbal forms of disciplining children (approx. 37%) and heavier forms of physical punishment (30%), where boys are more exposed to such forms of bringing up, and children who have some learning difficulties or lag behind in development (dos Santos et al. 2017). Maguire-Jack and Font (2017) researched the complex relationship between personal poverty and neighbourhood poverty in committing violence against children. Their results were obtained in Ohio relating to 946 parents indicating that there is no sure conclusion as to the negative effects of neighbourhood poverty on violent behaviour. Specifically, parents who are not poor, but live in poor neighbourhoods, are more often negligent towards their children. A higher probability exists that parents who are poor and live in poor neighbourhoods will neglect their children. Furthermore, poor parents in affluent neighbourhoods are more likely to express psychological aggression towards their children. Individual poverty (regardless of neighbourhood poverty) is attributed to greater physical punishment of children, whereas neighbourhood poverty (regardless of parent income) is linked to neglecting supervision of youth. Research conducted by Yun and Lee (2016) indicated another interesting trend as to what degree is the community’s situation relevant for quality parenting, i.e. indicating that individual and environmental factors are not equally relevant in neighbourhoods exhibiting different levels of development. Yun and Lee (2016) verified that the extent of children impact on parenting is depended on the level of neighbourhood disadvantage. This was verified from a total of 773 siblings from different families. The results indicated that in developed neighbourhoods, genetic factors explained 43–55% of the variance, whereas environmental factors were insignificant. In underdeveloped neighbourhoods, this ratio was opposite, i.e. 34–57% of the variance is explained using perceived parenting, while genetic factors are insignificant. In all measures of parenting (maternal attachment, parental monitoring, maternal involvement), the median value is somewhat better in developed neighbourhoods, though differences are not statistically significant, except for the maternal involvement factor.

2  Effects of Living in Disadvantaged Neighbourhoods on Personal Well-Being

45

2.4  L  ife in Disadvantaged Communities and Health of Inhabitants Much research throughout the world has unequivocally shown that inhabitants in disadvantaged communities have more health problems, as well as risks, contributing to poorer health – from unavailable health care to low levels of health awareness. An extensive overview of the literature reveals entire series of empirical proof relating to links between health and neighbourhood disadvantage (Riley 2017). Subsequently, in disadvantaged neighbourhoods, the weight of newborns is less, there is a greater incidence of cancer and heart diseases, more injuries occur and generally a greater mortality. A longitudinal study by Tanggaard Andersen et  al. (2018) with measures taking place on two occasions, i.e. 2008 and 2013, showed that life in disadvantaged communities contributes to poorer health, whereas preserving mental health is especially reliant on social welfare networks. Measurements from both periods indicate that as much as 38% of inhabitants in disadvantaged communities consider themselves as being of poor health. The significance of the relationship is also evident in the qualitative study of two disadvantaged communities in Malta (Satariano 2019) where experiencing social cohesion and a sense of belonging to the community was shown to be important. Life in a disadvantaged community contributes to higher morality levels. Denney et al. (2018a) research the link between neighbourhood concentrated disadvantage and adult all-cause mortality. The link was confirmed, meaning that life in a more disadvantaged neighbourhood is associated with higher odds of dying from any cause. However, this link varies depending on ethnicity and race. Higher mortality is attributed to non-Hispanic whites in more disadvantaged neighbourhoods. However, the same authors discovered that a lower level of development in neighbourhoods does not lead to a greater mortality in a subsample of poor members from other ethnic groups (non-Hispanic blacks and foreign-born Hispanics), which indicates that other variables acting as a protective factor have an impact on such groups, such as social support or social networks. Gaskin et al. (2019) also investigated the contribution provided by neighbourhood development, air quality, economic stress and homicide rates. Evidence shows that neighbourhood disadvantage increases the hazard of dying, and older persons, persons with chronic illnesses and those living in neighbourhoods with a larger proportion of African Americans are at risk. Another interesting finding is that a greater hazard of dying exists for persons who have moved from one neighbourhood to another, which may be linked to the fact that persons with chronic illnesses move to poorer neighbourhoods due to costs of living. Zygmunt et al. (2019) addressed the issue of avoidable mortality which is consistently the lowest in developed neighbourhoods. Keeping in mind that over a 20-year period the avoidable mortality rate has almost been halved, the differences become deeper when comparing data for Ontario Province and less developed neighbourhoods. Given the higher mortality rate, unfavourable results for the older population in disadvantaged neighbourhoods are expected. Neighbourhood disadvantage even

46

A. Opačić

contributes to accelerated biological ageing (Lei et al. 2017). Inhabitants in the most disadvantaged neighbourhoods have a significantly lower level of functional abilities, and in more poorly developed neighbourhoods, at greater risk are persons with a lower level of education, women, persons not able to work and persons in households with lower incomes (Loh et al. 2016). Disadvantaged communities create difficult living conditions in the earliest period of life, resulting in unfavourable outcomes for children’s health. Kane et al. (2017) carried out a study analysing electronic birth certificate records of 1,215,806 births in New Jersey from 1996 to 2006. The author’s initial view was that disadvantaged and affluent areas are not the opposite sides of the same coin, but they should be treated as separate phenomena. Results of the research confirmed that the risk from poorer birth outcomes depends on the level of neighbourhood affluence as well as neighbourhood disadvantage, whereby the level of neighbourhood affluence is presented as the most important predictor of neighbourhood disadvantage. A Chinese study of 26 rural regions in 11 provinces in which income per capita is much lower than the national or rural average (Zhang et al. 2018) using a sample of 6387 children discovered that 19.2% of them had a malnutrition disorder, with a high rate present in older children, boys, ethnic minorities and lower levels of education for the custodian, a higher rate of malnutrition at 12% and overweight conditions at 8.8%. Madiba et al. (2019) investigated the link between preschool formation and developmental outcomes in children in the Republic of South Africa in the poorly developed neighbourhood of Tshwana based on a sample of 1256 mothers and children. Those exposed to the risk of being stunted and underweight were children older than 24 months and also children who attended preschools. Up to 20.5% of children had a body weight below average for their age, 11% suffered from malnutrition and 22.4% were seriously stagnant in growth. Information is less favourable for boys than girls. What is particularly worrying is that kindergartens and preschools, which protect children’s development, unfortunately exhibited greater risks of suffering from malnutrition or stunted growth in children younger than 5 years of age (underweight and stunted in growth). Based on data collected from the Bangladesh Urban Health Survey, Raju et al. (2018) discovered that among children living in slums, there are nonetheless certain differences and that the differences stem from education of mothers and household incomes. The results confirm poorer development outcomes (measures for expected body height based on age) for children from slums with respect to children not living in slums and especially with respect to children from rural communities. In addition, an aggravating factor for children living in slums is access to toilets shared by households. Salmi et al. (2018) conducted a population-based prospective study of all paediatric out-of-hospital emergencies in Helsinki, Finland. The results show that a greater number of such cases originated in socioeconomically disadvantaged areas, where cases involving misuse of emergency services for non-emergency situations were excluded from the study. Besides physical health, children in low-income communities show a somewhat lower mental development with respect to the general population (Finegood et al. 2017).

2  Effects of Living in Disadvantaged Neighbourhoods on Personal Well-Being

47

Also worth mentioning is that some disadvantaged communities pose a particular risk for the general health of a population. Ezeh et al. (2017) reviewed literature and summarised all the numerous risks faced by children from the slums in Kenya and Bangladesh compared to children not living in slums. Much research in Kenya, Ecuador, Brazil, Haiti and the Philippines suggested that mortality rates for newborns were higher in slums compared to rural areas, with general health indicators more unfavourable for children living in the slums of Kenya and Bangladesh. Children have a higher risk of catching numerous infectious diseases, gastrointestinal infections, leptospirosis, diseases caused by parasites, dengue fever, tuberculosis, malnutrition, diarrhoea, physical injuries, greater emotional and behavioural problems (though there is not enough research on mental health), respiratory diseases and cardiovascular diseases. Zaman et al. (2018) reviewed literature on investigations conducted in the Indian slums of Guwahati, Assam, which uncovered numerous health problems, especially poor diet among children; infectious diseases such as tuberculosis, pneumonia and diarrhoea; increased mortality rates among children and mothers; inadequate access to health care; and a low level of health awareness. Certain poor communities in significantly less developed countries face multiple risks from particular groups of diseases such as tropical diseases (also attributed to climate change) (Aulia and Fajar Ayu 2017) or soil-transmitted helminth infections (Müller et al. 2016). In addition to general results indicating poorer health conditions, the research revealed a lower health awareness among the population in disadvantaged communities: lack of knowledge, riskier health behaviour and less participation in preventive medical check-ups. Inhabitants in poor communities lack knowledge in protecting their health in the unfavourable conditions of their surroundings (Fajar Ayu et  al. 2017). Research by Sajid et  al. (2019) in the slums of Islamabad in Pakistan revealed that 93% of households do not use boiled water, 78% do not wash their hands prior to eating and 56% do not wash their hands with soap after going to the toilet. Moreover, Algren et al. (2017) researched differences in health-risk behaviours between inhabitants in disadvantaged communities with respect to the general population in Denmark. The results show that inhabitants in disadvantaged communities with respect to the general population consume fruit and vegetables less often, are less physically active, smoke more and exhibit a greater combination of health-­ risk behaviours. On the other hand, inhabitants in disadvantaged communities less often exceed the recommended high-risk level of alcohol intake. In disadvantaged communities, high-risk health behaviour is more prevalent in men and inhabitants who are not Danes by ethnic origin, as well as persons who are on disability pensions or are single. Research into disadvantaged London neighbourhoods also suggests a high percentage of health-risk behaviours, where 92% of women and 93% of men indicated at least one of these types of behaviours (Watts et al. 2016). A particular risk group are men, white males, persons with disabilities or those suffering from chronic illnesses. Persons who are not fit for work indicated such behaviour 2–3 times more often compared to other groups. Durfey et  al. (2019) conducted research with the aim of identifying a link between the Area Deprivation Index and

48

A. Opačić

control of blood pressure and diabetes as well as cholesterol in the Medicare Advantage population. The results suggest that users in the most disadvantaged neighbourhoods check their blood pressure about 5% less often, check their diabetes condition less often (by approx. 6.9%) and their cholesterol (approx. 9.9%) less often. Living in disadvantaged communities increases the risk of certain specific illnesses. Poor living conditions in neighbourhoods also lead to harmful effects such as cardiovascular diseases. Barber et  al. (2016) discovered that adult African American women experiencing increased neighbourhood disadvantage by one standard deviation leads to a 25% greater risk of cardiovascular diseases, whereas this link was not confirmed for men. A less developed neighbourhood has negative effects on health when also taking into account levels of ecological risks. Research undertaken by Wing et al. (2017) found that inhabitants who suffered a severe stroke had risk factors such as neighbourhood disadvantage and a higher concentration of ozone the previous day, whereas, in more poorly developed neighbourhoods, higher concentrations of PM2.5 particles per day were present on the day persons suffered severe strokes. Research by Vuvor et al. (2017) showed that, in disadvantaged communities in Ghana, 18.8% of males had anaemia, whereas the global figure is significantly less and amounts to 5%. Life in poor neighbourhoods is linked to more serious respiratory problems in children (Slain et  al. 2018). Slain et  al. (2018) discovered that children living in neighbourhoods in the United States and in which the median income falls below the federal poverty threshold experience more serious consequences from respiratory diseases, which also includes longer stays in hospitals, higher healthcare costs and requiring the need for mechanical ventilation (the use of respirators). Joury et al. (2018) showed the high prevalence of orofacial pain resulting from inadequate dental health care in London, more precisely 33.5% in the more disadvantaged neighbourhoods compared to 22.6% in less disadvantaged neighbourhoods in London. Research into the link between health and development of a community also indicates that certain groups of inhabitants will face particularly greater risks, and here we will address additionally identified risks for women in terms of reproductive health and ethnicity. When it comes to women in general, HABITAT research in Brisbane, Australia (Rachele et al. 2018), identified a link between body mass index and neighbourhood disadvantage (i.e. larger BMIs in more disadvantaged neighbourhoods) and which relates solely to women, with no such link identified for men. Reproductive health is a specific challenge in poor communities. Data from a random sample of 1873 women between the ages of 15 and 49 in Nairobi, Kenya, suggests that there is no difference in the contraception methods in slums and non-slum settlements (Ochako et al. 2016). However, women in slums rarely do family planning, i.e. rarely regulate conception, and the percentage of those who do not use contraception is even greater. One of the consequences of this is that countries with a larger number of slums also have a higher fertility rate.

2  Effects of Living in Disadvantaged Neighbourhoods on Personal Well-Being

49

Furthermore, research results from Islam and Sultana (2019) in Bangladesh on a sample of 6137 women revealed that women in slums have a higher risk of complications during pregnancy compared to women who do not live in slums. A particular problem is the Zika virus, considered a problem among the urban poor (Snyder et al. 2017). Research results by Kusuma et al. (2018) highlighted the problem of inadequate prenatal care for women living in slums. Almost 41% of births take place outside of healthcare institutions, 16% of women received no form of prenatal care and 46% had visited only once to three times a healthcare worker prior to giving birth (Kusuma et al. 2018). DeGuzman et al. (2017) discovered that neighbourhood disadvantage has a negative effect on the early detection of breast cancer. Some disadvantaged communities are especially sensitive to natural catastrophes, and this is also related to poorer healthcare outcomes. Esfandyari et al. (2019) conducted interesting research into the condition of pregnant women and birth outcomes of children born in Iran in areas affected by earthquake in Varzaghan in 2012. Pregnant women who lived in highly affected earthquake areas had a somewhat lower body weight during pregnancy and more preterm deliveries (premature births), and their children exhibited somewhat poorer development indicators when taking into account the expected body weight during the first year of life and body height in the first 2 years of life. Regarding health outcomes when taking into account ethnicity structures in disadvantaged communities, the results are not uniform. Riley (2017) uncovered an entire series of empirical evidence on the connection between health and neighbourhood disadvantage. On the other hand, oftentimes poorer neighbourhoods become an area of segregation for ethnic and racial groups; hence, coincidental effects of racial and/or ethnic segregation and neighbourhoods are ambiguous. While some research ascertains an added negative impact of racial and/or ethnic segregation, other studies confirm only unfavourable effects of underdeveloped neighbourhoods, where ethnic and/or racial structures have no effect at all. Roe et al. (2016) investigated and identified the individual, social and environmental predictors relating to general health assessment in six disadvantaged English ethnic exceptionally diverse neighbourhoods (conurbations). Though differences in general health among ethnic groups were identified as well as differences in perceiving community features, the conclusion was that features identifying a neighbourhood are a significant predictor of general health. Across all groups, perceptions of the social environment predicted general health as well as perceived quality of the neighbourhood and neighbourhood satisfaction. However, in some ethnic groups, certain neighbourhood features are more prominent: in the group of Indian origin, the highest ranked predictor is trust in neighbours; in the dominantly white or mixed neighbourhoods, the most significant predictors are place belonging and loneliness variables; satisfaction with green areas is a significant predictor for ethnically mixed neighbourhoods (without a white population). In concluding, poorer health assessments and greater mortality were confirmed in disadvantaged communities throughout the world. Moreover, a lower level of health awareness among the population in disadvantaged communities was also confirmed including a greater presence of health-risk behaviours. Life in

50

A. Opačić

d­ isadvantaged communities leaves harmful consequences on women, their reproductive health and development outcomes for children. The link between some groups of illnesses (cardiovascular, respiratory) and the level of community development has also been confirmed. However, in addition to these general conclusions, the intensity of the harmful effect on the health of inhabitants is not the same in all types of disadvantaged communities. Some are especially at risk (e.g. slums, communities with more tropical and infectious diseases), nor are the effects equally unfavourable for all socio-­ demographic groups. While some research confirms larger risks for ethnic minority groups, other research concludes that ethnicity is not an important factor. Finally, certain aspects of a community may have a protective effect, such as the level of social support within the same disadvantaged community.

2.5  M  ental Health of Inhabitants in Disadvantaged Communities Disadvantaged communities are associated with economic difficulties, challenging living conditions and a higher level of uncertainty which in turn leads to mental health problems. A Danish study conducted in 12 disadvantaged communities (Algren et al. 2018) showed that inhabitants of disadvantaged neighbourhoods have a higher level of perceived stress (33.6%) compared to the general population (26.7%). When verifying socio-demographic variables (sex, age, ethnicity), inhabitants of disadvantaged neighbourhoods have a 1.3 times greater likelihood of perceived stress compared to the general population, with the link also confirmed when the level of education, marital status and employment are added. What aspects of neighbourhood disadvantage are especially significant for lower mental health outcomes? Hastings and Snowden (2019) investigated a national representative sample of ethnic groups of Caribbean Blacks and African Americans, where the results indicated that perceived neighbourhood social disorder is the factor contributing to a greater level of depression, especially for respondents with a lower and middle socioeconomic status, whereas this same connection was not confirmed for respondents with a higher socioeconomic status. On the other hand, perceived amenities in a community do not have any statistically significant relationship. Social disorganisation and the level of violence contribute directly to poorer mental health. A qualitative study undertaken by Athié et al. (2017) on the mental health of women in favelas showed that serious emotional conditions are attributed to family and environmental factors. The state of emotional suffering is followed by physical symptoms (headaches, stomach pains, insomnia, high blood pressure) and was described by women as especially serious when someone close to them succumbed to violence in the favelas. However due to the rules governing the favelas, they are not allowed to talk about such matters.

2  Effects of Living in Disadvantaged Neighbourhoods on Personal Well-Being

51

Underdeveloped communities and their generally harsh conditions directly contribute to poorer mental health. Lam et al. (2018) did an overview of research on the effects of rat exposure in neighbourhoods, whether at home or in the neighbourhood, on mental health in impoverished neighbourhoods. Direct consequences stem from fear of disease transmission or a physical bite. Indirect stress appears when inhabitants notice that public figures take no immediate action or create conflicts in the community or social disorganisation in neighbourhoods. Disadvantaged communities have a higher risk of developing addictions, though not all forms of addictions, only those that are economically accessible (especially nicotine addiction, alcohol and soft drugs). HABITAT project in Brisbane, Australia (Rachele et al. 2016), showed that smoking is linked to neighbourhood disadvantage, and additionally, the intensity of smoking is linked to the perception of incivilities, such as rubbish or graffiti. Research conducted by Ghulam et al. (2016) on a sample of 1000 inhabitants in the slums of India showed that 53.9% smoke, 46.5% often consume alcohol, 8.9% use cannabis and approximately 5% develop an addiction to medication, whereas cocaine is present in only 0.1% of the population. All data parameters exceed data for the general population. Similarly, research conducted by Reboussin et al. (2016) uncovered that the consumption of marijuana is greater in neighbourhoods where the level of violent and non-violent crimes by the adult population is greater, including violent and non-violent crimes by juveniles, greater rate of abuse and neglect in families (indicating social disorganisation) and a greater proportion of single-parent families. Risks associated with adolescent mental health should also importantly be highlighted, where the obtained findings do not suggest an unequivocal conclusion. Though some of the research indicates that the mental health of adolescents in underdeveloped communities is not worse compared to youth in developed communities (Carbone et al. 2019; Goldstein et al. 2019), another set of investigations indicate the opposite conclusions. Research into a poorly developed Hispanic community in California with 202 children in primary school (Guo et al. 2019) showed disturbing data concerning the mental health of children. Based on statements from children, 5.6% of them suffer depression, 6.67% experience anxiety and 3.1% have both of these problems. According to statements taken from teachers, the numbers are even greater; hence, 7% of children have depression, 5.5% experience anxiety and 2.5% of them have both of these problems. All data exceed the national indicators where 2.7% of children at the national level have depression and 0.7% experience anxiety. Moreover, young girls and children from single-parent families represent an additional risk. The large study by Tomek et al. (2018) on a sample of 2335 young people from poor communities in the United States shows that school connectedness reduced the probability of suicide ideations and attempts over time for both females and males. Hence, in poor communities, the school plays an important protective role in communities where up to 9% of young people attempt suicide, and 11% think about it, which is higher than the national average. Specifically, at the national level, 2% of Black Americans attempted suicide, and 7% thought about committing suicide. A study on adolescents from southern California (Troxel et  al. 2017) showed the

52

A. Opačić

e­ xistence of a link between neighbourhood disadvantage, lower socioeconomic status and sleeping difficulties. An interesting point is the link between personal poverty and community poverty and sleeping difficulties more prevalent in young people whose mothers have a lower level of education and non-Hispanic white adolescents.

2.6  L  ife in Disadvantaged Communities and the Lifestyle of Inhabitants: Diet and Physical Activity The health of the population is inseparable from conditions that prevail in the community, accessibility to health care but also how inhabitants practise a healthy lifestyle. Earlier, we pointed out that health-risk behaviour appears more often in disadvantaged community, where certain obstacles emanate from the very structural conditions within the community, which is revealed in an improper diet and less physical activity. When referring to dietary habits, the results show a high level of food insecurity, lower quality of available foods and inadequate access to food supply locations. Denney et al. (2018b) arrived at an interesting result in the United States, where life in more poorly developed neighbourhoods will lead to greater food insecurity by 22%, and the especially vulnerable are families with a higher socioeconomic status, which is somewhat of a paradox. This shows that the community represents an autonomous risk context, but also that in certain circumstances, poor families will obviously have a certain form of security network which is more accessible than for families with a higher status. Research conducted by Murimi et al. (2016) in low-income neighbourhoods in Texas showed that the prevalence of household food insecurity is 63%, whereas the prevalence of child food insecurity is 43%, where indicators are worse for urban than rural neighbourhoods. Similar data has been revealed in other parts of the world. Wanyama et al. (2019) applied the indicator called household food insecurity access scale (HFIAS) in slums in Nairobi and Kampala, where, based on self-assessment by household members, 87% and 93% of households in both cities, respectively, were aware of insecurity in terms of proper quality food. Objective indicators of daily calorie intake show that 31% of households in Nairobi and 59% in Kampala are classified as malnourished, with an especially reduced intake of nutrition-rich foodstuffs such as fruit or foodstuffs of animal origin. An interesting finding is also that when women are more educated, they have a greater role in making decisions, indicating that they have a positive effect on the way food is distributed in the household and on satisfactory food for the children. In certain communities, where there are ecological risks, a lower quality of accessible foods has been observed. Research conducted by Tsai et  al. (2019) in Kenya shows the presence of pathogens in 62% of foods consumed by children (N = 127 households). Most households do not have a handwashing station; flies are

2  Effects of Living in Disadvantaged Neighbourhoods on Personal Well-Being

53

present in a third of households during food preparation and animal faeces in 8% of households. Life in low-income communities may be linked to low intake of necessary nutrients. Research conducted by Jaryum et al. (2018) in Kenya showed that in such communities in Kenya, children younger than 5 years of age have lower zinc levels on average, and 86.4% of children have levels below the normal, meaning that children do not consume ample quantities of foodstuffs rich in zinc. Inhabitants in disadvantaged communities find it more difficult to access proper quality foods. Stores offering a large selection of better-quality foods are less available in underdeveloped communities due to smaller profitability (Luan et al. 2016; Theuri et al. 2016). Trapl et al. (2017) conducted research in Cleveland in neighbourhoods that have a large concentration of poor inhabitants. Their analysis of food quality and availability in local stores shows that availability of products decreases towards the end of the month, even though prices and quality do not significantly change. Farmer et al. (2016) compared the perception on the availability of open markets in various neighbourhoods of Bloomington in Indiana. Though the open markets objectively are closer to the centres of poorly developed neighbourhoods, inhabitants consider them to be less accessible due to transport difficulties (not geographic difficulties). Another health risk present in disadvantaged communities is less physical activity, where most of the available research mentions safety obstacles. The results of the HABITAT research from Australia (Loh et al. 2018) showed that inhabitants in disadvantaged neighbourhoods are less physically active compared to inhabitants who live in more affluent neighbourhoods. Disadvantaged neighbourhoods are also perceived as less safe from criminals, which is probably the reason for less physical activity. Research conducted by Cohen et  al. (2018) also showed that the use of parks in low-income communities in Los Angeles depends on their perception of safety and is not linked to the objective rate of violent crimes. The qualitative study by Child et al. (2019) of low-income communities in the United States again shows that security and other sources of danger are an obstacle to physical activity in natural surroundings. Threats are violence on the streets, hazardous waste, traffic and dogs that roam about free or are not on a leash. Parents with small children and senior citizens, especially older women, are an especially vulnerable group. In addition to safety reasons, impediments also exist in infrastructural conditions. According to the research of Bakar et al. (2016), in low-income Malaysian neighbourhoods, four key reasons for seldom physical activity are poorly equipped infrastructure in parks and broken equipment, less time for recreation, concern about safety and the desire to staying in closed spaces. Cheval et al. (2019) in terms of the SHARE European study discovered that poorly developed neighbourhoods with poorly accessible services contribute to less physical activity for the older population. However, this effect of the community may to a lesser extent be mitigated through individual cognitive abilities, though the community context remains dominant. Though at the level of indicators of physical activities they are inadequate for disadvantaged neighbourhoods, there certainly are differences within the actual neighbourhoods. In 32 disadvantaged neighbourhoods of Glasgow, almost half of

54

A. Opačić

the population is less active than the recommendation, especially inhabitants older than 55 years of age, retirees and persons suffering from chronic illnesses (Mason et al. 2016). Nonetheless, some factors in the community may contribute to more physical activity. Research conducted by Watts et al. (2017) in 40 disadvantaged neighbourhoods in London showed that a 15% variance in sedentary time can be explained by a neighbourhood’s specific characteristics. Hence, those inhabitants that have a more positive perception of the neighbourhood and more developed social network and live in neighbourhoods with lower levels of street connectivity are less prone to sitting. Remote rural communities with a majority of native inhabitants and a traditional lifestyle may also be an incentive for greater physical activity. Research conducted by Evans et  al. (2018) on 13,000 members of the native population in Australia provided results which confirmed that physical activity is greater in remote communities compared to non-remote areas.

2.7  E  ducation and Life Opportunities for Children Growing Up in Deprived Communities Life in disadvantaged communities can easily generate less opportunities later in life and additionally deepen social inequality. We pointed out earlier that life for children in disadvantaged communities is difficult in terms of socioeconomics, residential health and family life. However, growing up and opportunities later in life are determined to some extent by educational opportunities. Therefore, we will finish the overview of consequences of life in a disadvantaged community by reflecting on opportunities later in life which also indicates possibilities of repeating the poverty and disadvantageous cycle. What are the consequences of growing up in poorly developed communities on outcomes later in life? Alvarado (2018) discovered that exposure to neighbourhood disadvantage leads to unemployment and reduced income later in life. The likelihood of unemployment is 120% greater than for persons who have experienced neighbourhood disadvantage generally when growing up, by 99% during childhood and by as much as 200% during adolescence, which again highlights the serious effects of deprivation in the period of adolescence. Unemployment depends on one’s lifespan in disadvantaged neighbourhoods. A detrimental impact on income also exists; however, the effect is moderated by the specific period of life. When referring to lower educational opportunities, a few dimensions should be pointed out, such as the higher risk of dropping out of an educational system, lower academic achievements and less chance of continuing one’s education, as well as unfavourable factors relating to school activities. Additional research points out the risks of dropping out of the educational system. Research by Longfield and Tooley (2017) in 7 slums in Monrovia, Liberia, revealed a very concerning fact relating to the education of children. In all, 27.7%

2  Effects of Living in Disadvantaged Neighbourhoods on Personal Well-Being

55

of them were outside of the educational system, 65.4% attended private schools and 6.9% attended public state schools. Children at a higher risk of being outside of the educational system are children who are younger and born later, have more educated parents and whose families have a higher income. What is encouraging is the fact that girls are not at greater risk from dropping out of school, i.e. here gender does not play a significant role. Prakash et al. (2017) identified in their research in southern India (N = 2275 in upper primary classes in schools) gender obstacles, i.e. the dropout rates from the education system for girls living in marginalised communities are attributed to economic factors (household poverty, migration due to employment), social norms and practices (child marriages and the tendency to value the education of girls less) as well as factors relating directly to school (peer violence in schools and not incentivising surroundings for learning). The school dropout rate for this sample is 8.7%, which is almost twice the average in India (4% for primary and upper primary classes). Girls are especially exposed to high levels of gender inequality, for instance, a high level of absenteeism from school was observed during menstruation when schools become unfriendly surroundings for girls. The risk of dropping out of school is also linked to other aggravating family or school factors, and some stem from earlier mentioned social disorganisation. We have seen that in India, gender stereotypes play a limiting role. Some other risk factors indicate limited resources available to school institutions, and some are linked to poorer socioeconomic conditions of the families of children. Research conducted by Owens and Candipan (2019) in American metropolitan areas has shown that the following school characteristics have an impact in low-­ income neighbourhoods: they have the greatest proportion of Hispanic and black students, and the least number of white persons and Asian students. They also have the highest concentration of other vulnerable student groups. In these groups, schools experience a much higher frequent dropout rate (15% of pupils with respect to 8% in schools in affluent neighbourhoods) and a higher rate of reprimands issued by schools (5% compared to 1.3%). There are more teachers not holding state licences permitting work and teachers without prior work experience (14% compared to 9% in schools in affluent neighbourhoods), and teacher wages are also lower. Here too we see a concentration of pupils based on their socioeconomic status, but what is especially interesting is that the cost of schooling per child is about $US350 more in low-income neighbourhoods. Unfortunately, results concerning poorer educational outcomes for pupils in low-income neighbourhoods were corroborated. In low-income neighbourhoods, 52% of pupils showed adequate knowledge of mathematics and reading, whereas in the highest-income classes, 75% of pupils showed the same level of knowledge. Unfortunately, the growth trend is slower in low-income classes compared to neighbourhoods in the highest income classes. Social disorganisation and a greater presence of problematic behaviour by young are suitable factors for risky sexual behaviour, and if resulting in teenage pregnancies, it severely limits access to an education. Young who are considered disadvantaged and/or live in disadvantaged neighbourhoods often exhibit risky sexual

56

A. Opačić

behaviour (Jones et al. 2017). Hence, research by Jones et al. (2017) in a disadvantaged neighbourhood in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA, with 273 boys revealed that almost half (47%) were not using condoms, 37% had no other forms of protection and 29% were not sure as to the type of contraception used prior to sexual intercourse. In all, 25% of participants used some form of coercion for sexual intercourse or coercion to avoid using contraception. A qualitative study of San Bernabé, a poor Mexican town in the metropolitan area of Monterrey (Mendoza 2017), unveiled the existence of a whole series of challenging factors attributed to the education of children. Negative factors in the family environment are insufficient interest by parents in the education of their children, unemployment, family disintegration, the occurrence of violence, poverty and addiction in families. Other recognised challenging factors are attributed to schools which do not receive adequate tools from state bodies to intervene in situations when families fail to provide support to children and in situations where schools lack sufficient textbooks as basic resources for work. Research conducted by Tabuchi et  al. (2018) in the Nishinari disadvantaged neighbourhood in Osaka, Japan, revealed that pupils who were at risk of dropping out of school were those who had difficult experiences (violence, poverty, bullying, neighbourhood violence), smoked cigarettes or often arrived late at school. The authors discovered in the research that 18.7% of pupils dropped out of high school, which is far more than the national figure of 2.6%. Starting with the theoretical framework relating to conditions of educability, Bonal and Tarabini (2014) presented their research of Brazilian favelas in the city of Belo Horizonte based on two personal stories showing how the relationship between social context and educational outcomes is complex in a number of ways. In very socially disorganised communities, such as favelas, the authors presented the prospect of two boys receiving an education where their resistance to education in a certain situation is strongly influenced by the culture of violence in the neighbourhood, and the other situation highlights the internalisation of poverty as a stigma and the belief that education does not pay off, though in both stories, the family endeavours to integrate the culture of effort, believing that the limiting factors of growing up in a favela can be bridged. The actual community has its own dynamics, processes and meaning, which is interpreted and has the effect of mediation between family and individual factors, and in no way can there be any mention of a linear relationship between poverty and educational achievements. Similar to the previous example, and given the burden of social disorganisation in the community as well as numerous family and individual problems relating to life in a situation where numerous resources are lacking, the education of children (especially if taking place outside the community, such as high school) also draws the risk of stigmatisation. Gulczyńska (2019) cautions against this in a qualitative study in Polish Łódź in which the author describes the process of how youth, who also build part of their identity through delinquent behaviour, upon entering the educational process may very quickly become stigmatised, after which further conflicts occur, deepening stigmatisation and permanently damaging the relationship between teachers and pupils and consequently reducing chances of receiving an education.

2  Effects of Living in Disadvantaged Neighbourhoods on Personal Well-Being

57

Challenging conditions for education are linked to lower educational achievements. These differences are evident even in the earliest period of schooling. Based on the comprehensive National Longitudinal Survey of Youth in the United States, Alvarado (2016) discovered that children who grew up in disadvantaged neighbourhoods continually showed poorer results in exams that test mathematical literacy and reading proficiency, increasing problems in the behaviour of young children. However, a surprising result was that older children exhibited more favourable results. Given that schools are not only educational institutions, but also have a strong socialisation effect, there may also exist risk and protective factors, while development opportunities are impeded due to the fact that children in school situations are most orientated towards social networks with children from the same economic status. Levy et al. (2019), based on a large longitudinal study in Chicago covering 6207 children in 80 neighbourhoods, investigated separately the effects of neighbourhood disadvantage and neighbourhood advantage in attending study and concluded that neighbourhood disadvantage more closely foresaw attending studies with respect to neighbourhood advantage, especially in the case of young African Americans and youth from the Latino community, who live in high-income households. For whites, the neighbourhood has almost no effect, whereas the effect is moderate for young African Americans and young from the Latino community, who live in medium-income and low-income households. This tells us that the neighbourhood will not unambiguously play either a positive or negative role. Actually, only poorly developed neighbourhoods will have a strong role on individual outcomes, whereas individual factors carry more weight in better developed neighbourhoods. Research conducted by Chen (2019) using the example of California showed clear educational segregation of inhabitants with low income. Specifically, colleges close to low-income neighbourhoods have more low-economic-status students, and this relationship is not valid for higher quartiles of income censuses. Educational opportunities however do not entirely depend on the community situation, and some other factors may play a protective role. Research using a sample of 775 children from the most underdeveloped rural areas of southwest China (Ge and Wang 2019) showed that multidimensional poverty among children is attributed to lower educational achievements; however, the relationship with parents and peers may moderate that relationship. Specifically, children who are more exposed to poverty, also have worse relationships with their parents and peers, which overall leads to poorer academic achievements. Children living with a greater number of brothers and sisters are more at risk. Nonetheless, we should not forget that though youth living in poorer communities are disadvantaged in a number of ways, experts working with such youth are able to focus on strengthening a whole series of proficiencies which they harbour as individuals or that they utilise from their families or school surrounding. Curtin et al. (2016) investigated the experiences of pupils with disabilities living in disadvantaged communities and who expressed some resilience. They face the following risks: poverty, isolation and instability in family relationships. However, what

58

A. Opačić

e­ specially empowers them is a positive attitude, perseverance to advance their existential outcomes and skills in seeking help. They are further assisted by environmental factors, such as a supporting school environment and adults who become role models for them.

2.8  C  onclusion: The Dynamic Relationship Between Environmental and Individual Factors in the General Well-Being of Inhabitants in Disadvantaged Communities What type of relationship between various levels of community development and individual outcomes relating to the quality of life is revealed in recent scientific research? Continuing with the theory of neighbourhood effect, the most important conclusions can be summarised as three questions: (a) What life outcomes are impacted in a disadvantaged community? (b) What community mechanisms have a particular influence creating this effect? (c) What individual circumstances and trajectories moderate the community effect and individual outcomes? The research results provide a clear signal to social workers that they pay special attention to multiple risks facing inhabitants from poorly developed communities. Cumulatively, the results indicate that life in disadvantaged communities means living in an environment with poorly developed infrastructure, greater ecological risks, less safety and higher rates of violence and crime along with greater occurrence of juvenile delinquent behaviour. Furthermore, inhabitants will more often encounter poverty, poorer residential conditions and reduced opportunities on the labour market. In addition, the results also reveal poorer family relationships, greater partner violence against children and reduced parenting capacities. Consistently, there is confirmation that health problems are evident in higher mortality rates, lower levels of functional abilities, poorer health indicators in the development of children and specifically in some groups a higher prevalence of diseases such as cardiovascular and respiratory diseases. Furthermore, poorer health indicators are linked to lower levels of personal health awareness and a higher presence of health-risk behaviour. Besides physical health, we can also talk about risks to mental health, attributed to higher exposure to stress, including higher levels of depression and suicide even in childhood and adolescence. Inhabitants in disadvantaged communities also have a less healthy lifestyle, including inadequate or improper nutritious foods and less physical activity. The earlier mentioned limiting effects contribute to reduced educational opportunities, lower educational achievements and higher risks of dropping out of school. What is especially worrying are results indicating a growing trend of inequality. Not only are the results unfavourable in disadvantaged communities, the growth rate in particular segments are slower than in developed communities, leading to an increased inequality gap.

2  Effects of Living in Disadvantaged Neighbourhoods on Personal Well-Being

59

We should not forget that some communities are especially at risk, such as slums, favelas, ghettos and communities affected by natural disasters. Underdeveloped communities in underdeveloped countries will generate more quickly unfavourable life outcomes for their inhabitants. However, overall, disadvantaged communities do not generate the mentioned risks automatically, and contributing mechanisms are very important in understanding this relationship. The neighbourhood effect is produced by socio-interactive, environmental, geographic and institutional mechanisms (Galster 2012). However, based on all that has been said, the results of recent research indicate the prevalence of socio-interactive mechanisms, providing a lot of room for all professionals involved in community development to take actions. Social disorganisation often appears as that risk or corrosive element which destroys the fabric of a community and has an impact on almost all earlier mentioned outcomes. It occurs in greater levels of violence, crime, greater disorder in the community and higher levels of objective or perceived insecurity. Social disorganisation prevents activation of other potential protective community mechanisms, such as social cohesion, information social control and positive relationships between inhabitants and their community (higher levels of satisfaction in the neighbourhood or a sense of belonging). Social networks for inhabitants mainly comprise similar social groups so that the concentration of disadvantaged social groups further discourages development activities, deepens internal inequalities and stigmatises members of the community. In the same measure, detrimental institutional mechanisms evident in less investment by society and less availability of social resources are also important, especially in the sphere of infrastructure and support in education. Inadequate institutional support may create a disadvantage paradox in terms of development resulting in the equalisation of costs of services, even more so than in developed communities. The neighbourhood effect is moderated through individual features. The community will not leave equally strong effects on all its members, and this has to do with individual migration trajectories as well as socio-demographic characteristics. The results unequivocally show the existence of differences in effects based on socio-demographic characteristics, but there is no unequivocal answer as to which group undergoes more difficulties. Indeed, the research reveals the ambiguity of the obtained results. Hence, some indicators are worse for the older population, some for the younger population. In some areas of life, women face greater risks, whereas the same is true for men in other areas. Poorer groups face higher risks for certain problems, whereas the opposite is true for other issues, i.e. better-off families in disadvantaged communities. Moreover, there is no unequivocal answer to the question of the position of ethnic minority groups: while some research indicates that they have an unfavourable outcome, other research shows that there is no difference or that they have more favourable outcomes with respect to the dominant social group. These findings do not mean that individual differences should not be sought, but instead that they should always be sought because there is not unequivocal answer as to who finds it most difficult in a disadvantaged community. The results

60

A. Opačić

confirm the importance of strengthening individual resilience and family and peer relationships because they may become protective mechanisms that prevent the community from playing out a negative role in the life of individuals. What research also tells us is that the amount of time someone lives in a disadvantaged community or when the person moves out of such a community is not irrelevant. The formative adolescent years have a particular impact, meaning that less favourable effects may lead to a shorter lifespan in a disadvantaged community, but which began in adolescence. Finally, a number of conclusions should be drawn concerning the dynamic relationship between individual and collective mechanisms in creating the neighbourhood effect: • Disadvantaged and affluent areas are not two faces of the same coin and should be treated as separate phenomena. Ratios of environmental and individual factors are not the same in developed and deprived communities. Some research suggests that genetic factors have greater ratios in developed and environmental in undeveloped communities. Therefore, sometimes the type of community is irrelevant, as long as it is not underdeveloped. Also, while some life outcomes are more impacted as to whether someone lives in a developed community (e.g. their state of health), for others, life in a disadvantaged community will have a crucial impact (e.g. educational outcomes). • Social comparison theory and relative disadvantage theory highlight the importance of the relationship between community and individual status, i.e. their family. Again, the results are not unequivocal. For instance, youth are more often delinquent when they live in neighbourhoods which are more poorly developed with respect to surrounding neighbourhoods; inhabitants with higher incomes assess satisfaction with life more favourably if they live in developed neighbourhoods, though living in poorer families, their material status will be assessed as more favourable. Even in the same conditions, results may oscillate, and poor inhabitants in an affluent community will exhibit some detrimental aspects of parenting whereas other aspects by affluent inhabitants in poor communities. • Different community mechanisms may be relevant for creating the neighbourhood effect in different social groups. For instance, while trust in neighbours for general health is relevant in the Indian group, the level of belonging to a community in the white group is relevant for general health. All this tells us that, as social workers in working with disadvantaged communities and their inhabitants, we must be open to working in different areas of life, as well as being aware of the many dimensions in the process community development which should be taken into consideration. Foremost, conducting research into the specific community is important in order to gain insight into the complex, dynamic relationships between the community and the individual.

2  Effects of Living in Disadvantaged Neighbourhoods on Personal Well-Being

61

References Acevedo-Garcia, D., McArdle, N., Hardy, E., Dillman, K. N., Reece, J., Crisan, U. I., Norris, D., & Osypuk, T. L. (2016). Neighborhood opportunity and location affordability for low-income renter families. Housing Policy Debate, 26(4–5), 607–645. https://doi.org/10.1080/10511482 .2016.1198410. Algren, M. H., Ekholm, O., van Lenthe, F., Mackenbach, J., Bak, C. K., & Andersen, P. T. (2017). Health-risk behaviour among residents in deprived neighbourhoods compared with those of the general population in Denmark: A cross-sectional study. Health and Place, 45, 189–198. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthplace.2017.03.014. Algren, M.  H., Ekholm, O., Nielsen, L., Ersbøll, A.  K., Bak, C.  K., & Andersen, P.  T. (2018). Associations between perceived stress, socioeconomic status, and health-risk behaviour in deprived neighbourhoods in Denmark: A cross-sectional study. BMC Public Health, 18(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-018-5170-x. Althor, G., Mahood, S., Witt, B., Colvin, R. M., & Watson, J. E. M. (2018). Large-scale environmental degradation results in inequitable impacts to already impoverished communities: A case study from the floating villages of Cambodia. Ambio, 47, 747–759. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s13280-018-1022-2. Alvarado, S.  E. (2016). Delayed disadvantage: Neighborhood context and child development. Social Forces, 94(4), 1847–1877. https://doi.org/10.1093/sf/sow020. Alvarado, S. E. (2018). The impact of childhood neighborhood disadvantage on adult joblessness and income. Social Science Research, 70, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2017.10.004. Athié, K., Dowrick, C., Menezes, A. L. d. A., Cruz, L., Lima, A. C., Delgado, P. G. G., Favoreto, C., & Fortes, S. (2017). Anxious and depressed women’s experiences of emotional suffering and help seeking in a Rio de Janeiro favela. Ciência & Saúde Coletiva, 22(1), 75–86. https:// doi.org/10.1590/1413-81232017221.11732016. Aulia, D., & Fajar Ayu, S. (2017). Relationship between climate change and tropical disease in poor coastal area, Serdang Bedagai. In Proceedings of the 1st public health international conference (PHICo 2016), pp. 178–181. https://doi.org/10.2991/phico-16.2017.47. Bakar, N. A., Malek, N. A., & Mansor, M. (2016). Access to parks and recreational opportunities in urban low-income neighbourhood. Procedia  – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 234, 299–308. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2016.10.246. Barber, S., Hickson, D.  A., Wang, X., Sims, M., Nelson, C., & Diez-Roux, A.  V. (2016). Neighborhood disadvantage, poor social conditions, and cardiovascular disease incidence among African American adults in the Jackson heart study. American Journal of Public Health, 106(12), 2219–2226. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2016.303471. Bonal, X., & Tarabini, A. (2014). Being poor at school: Exploring conditions of educability in the favela. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 37(2), 212–229. https://doi.org/10.1080/01 425692.2014.924394. Buck, C., Bolbos, A., & Schneider, S. (2019). Do poorer children have poorer playgrounds? A geographically weighted analysis of attractiveness, cleanliness, and safety of playgrounds in affluent and deprived urban neighborhoods. Journal of Physical Activity and Health, 16(6), 397–405. https://doi.org/10.1123/jpah.2018-0177. Carbone, J.  T., Holzer, K.  J., & Vaughn, M.  G. (2019). Posttraumatic stress disorder among low-income adolescents experiencing family–neighborhood income disparities. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 32(6), 899–907. https://doi.org/10.1002/jts.22452. Chakraborti, L., & Margolis, M. (2017). Do industries pollute more in poorer neighborhoods? Evidence from toxic releasing plants in Mexico. Economics Bulletin, 37(2), 853–870. Chakraborty, T., Hsu, A., Manya, D., & Sheriff, G. (2019). Disproportionately higher exposure to urban heat in lower-income neighborhoods: A multi-city perspective. Environmental Research Letters, 14(10), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ab3b99. Chen, L.  H. (2019). Do colleges around low income areas accept more low income students? Evidence from California State Universities. Applied Economics Letters, 26(7), 601–603. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504851.2018.1488046.

62

A. Opačić

Cheval, B., Rebar, A.  L., Miller, M.  W., Sieber, S., Orsholits, D., Baranyi, G., Courvoisier, D., Cullati, S., Sander, D., Chalabaev, A., & Boisgontier, M. P. (2019). Cognitive resources moderate the adverse impact of poor perceived neighborhood conditions on self-reported physical activity of older adults. Preventive Medicine, 126. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ypmed.2019.05.029. Chiaraviglio, L., Blefari-Melazzi, N., Liu, W., Gutierrez, J. A., Van De Beek, J., Birke, R., Chen, L., Idzikowski, F., Kilper, D., Monti, J. P., & Wu, J. (2017). 5G in rural and low-income areas: Are we ready? In Proceedings of the 2016 ITU Kaleidoscope Academic Conference: ICTs for a Sustainable World, ITU WT 2016. https://doi.org/10.1109/ITU-WT.2016.7805720. Child, S. T., Kaczynski, A. T., Fair, M. L., Stowe, E. W., Hughey, S. M., Boeckermann, L., Wills, S., & Reeder, Y. (2019). ‘We need a safe, walkable way to connect our sisters and brothers’: A qualitative study of opportunities and challenges for neighborhood-based physical activity among residents of low-income African-American communities. Ethnicity and Health, 24(4), 353–364. https://doi.org/10.1080/13557858.2017.1351923. Cohen, D. A., Han, B., Park, S., Williamson, S., & Derose, K. P. (2018). Differences in Park use and Park-based physical activity among residents of low-income neighborhoods by age group and gender. Preventive Medicine, 131. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ypmed.2019.105948. Copp, J. E., Giordano, P. C., Manning, W. D., & Longmore, M. A. (2019). Neighborhood norms, disadvantage, and intimate partner violence perpetration. Sociological Forum, 34(3), 594–615. https://doi.org/10.1111/socf.12516. Curtin, K. A., Schweitzer, A., Tuxbury, K., & D’Aoust, J. A. (2016). Investigating the factors of resiliency among exceptional youth living in rural underserved communities. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 35(2), 3–9. https://doi.org/10.1177/875687051603500202. De, I., & Nag, T. (2016). Deprivation in slums and child poverty: Study on Kolkata. International Journal of Social Economics, 43(7), 739–759. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijse-11-2014-0226. DeGuzman, P. B., Cohn, W. F., Camacho, F., Edwards, B. L., Sturz, V. N., & Schroen, A. T. (2017). Impact of urban neighborhood disadvantage on late stage breast cancer diagnosis in Virginia. Journal of Urban Health, 94(2), 199–210. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11524-017-0142-5. Denney, J. T., Saint Onge, J. M., & Dennis, J. A. (2018a). Neighborhood concentrated disadvantage and adult mortality: Insights for racial and ethnic differences. Population Research and Policy Review, 37(2), 301–321. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11113-018-9461-9. Denney, J. T., Tolbert Kimbro, R., & Sharp, G. (2018b). Neighborhoods and food insecurity in households with young children: A disadvantage paradox? Social Problems, 65(3), 342–359. https://doi.org/10.1093/socpro/spw054. Dillahunt, T.  R., & Veinot, T.  C. (2018). Getting there: Barriers and facilitators to transportation access in underserved communities. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, 25(5), 1–39. https://doi.org/10.1145/3233985. dos Santos, V., da Silva, P. H. D., & Gandolfi, L. (2017). Parents’ use of physical and verbal punishment: Cross-sectional study in underprivileged neighborhoods. Jornal de Pediatria, 94(5), 511–517. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jped.2017.07.013. Durfey, S. N. M., Kind, A. J. H., Buckingham, W. R., DuGoff, E. H., & Trivedi, A. N. (2019). Neighborhood disadvantage and chronic disease management. Health Services Research, 54(supplement 1), 206–216. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6773.13092. Egondi, T., Muindi, K., Kyobutungi, C., Gatari, M., & Rocklöv, J. (2016). Measuring exposure levels of inhalable airborne particles (PM2.5) in two socially deprived areas of Nairobi, Kenya. Environmental Research, 148, 500–506. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2016.03.018. Esfandyari, M., Vaghef-Mehrabany, E., & Ebrahimi-Mameghani, M. (2019). Varzaghan earthquake affected mothers’ and their newborns’ health more severely, in socioeconomically vulnerable area. Disaster Medicine and Public Health Preparedness, 13(3), 511–518. https://doi. org/10.1017/dmp.2018.96. Esteban, M., Takagi, H., Mikami, T., Aprilia, A., Fujii, D., Kurobe, S., & Utama, N. A. (2017). Awareness of coastal floods in impoverished subsiding coastal communities in Jakarta: Tsunamis, typhoon storm surges and dyke-induced tsunamis. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 23, 70–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2017.04.007.

2  Effects of Living in Disadvantaged Neighbourhoods on Personal Well-Being

63

Evans, J. R., Wilson, R., Coleman, C., Man, W. Y. N., & Olds, T. (2018). Physical activity among indigenous Australian children and youth in remote and non-remote areas. Social Science and Medicine, 206, 93–99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2018.04.018. Ezeh, A., Oyebode, O., Satterthwaite, D., Chen, Y.-F., Ndugwa, R., Sartori, J., Mberu, B., Melendez-Torres, G. J., Haregu, T., Watson, S. I., Caiffa, W., Capon, A., & Lilford, R. J. (2017). The history, geography, and sociology of slums and the health problems of people who live in slums. The Lancet, 389(10068), 547–558. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(16)31650-6. Fajar Ayu, S., Aulia, D., & Nauly, M. (2017). Improving clean and healthy living behavior in the poor communities in Coaltal area, Serdang Bedagai. In 1(PHICo 2016), pp. 182–188. https:// doi.org/10.2991/phico-16.2017.42 Farmer, J., Minard, S., & Edens, C. (2016). Local foods and low-income communities: Location, transportation, and values. Journal of Agriculture, Food Systems, and Community Development, 6(4), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.5304/jafscd.2016.064.009. Finegood, E. D., Wyman, C., O’Connor, T. G., & Blair, C. B. (2017). Salivary cortisol and cognitive development in infants from low-income communities. Stress, 20(1), 112–121. https://doi. org/10.1080/10253890.2017.1286325. Friedline, T., Naraharisetti, S., & Weaver, A. (2019). Digital redlining: Poor rural communities’ access to Fintech and implications for financial inclusion. Journal of Poverty, 12, 1–25. https:// doi.org/10.1080/10875549.2019.1695162. Galster, G. (2012). The mechanism(s) of Neighbourhood effects: Theory, evidence, and policy implications. In M. van Ham, D.  Manley, N.  Bailey, L.  Simpson, & D.  Maclennan (Eds.), Neighbourhood effects research: New perspectives (pp. 23–56). Dordrecht: Springer. Galster, G., & Santiago, A. (2017). Neighbourhood ethnic composition and outcomes for lowincome Latino and African American children. Urban Studies, 54(2), 482–500. https://doi. org/10.1177/0042098015598067. Garthe, R. C., Gorman-Smith, D., Gregory, J., Schoeny, E., & M. (2018). Neighborhood concentrated disadvantage and dating violence among urban adolescents: The mediating role of neighborhood social processes. American Journal of Community Psychology, 61(3–4), 310–320. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajcp.12239. Gaskin, D. J., Roberts, E. T., Chan, K. S., McCleary, R., Buttorff, C., & Delarmente, B. A. (2019). No man is an island: The impact of neighborhood disadvantage on mortality. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 16(7), 1265. https://doi.org/10.3390/ ijerph16071265. Ge, T., & Wang, L. (2019). Multidimensional child poverty, social relationships and academic achievement of children in poor rural areas of China. Children and Youth Services Review, 103, 209–217. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2019.06.007. Ghulam, R., Verma, K., Sharma, P., Razdan, M., & Razdan, R. A. (2016). Drug abuse in slum population. Indian Journal of Psychiatry, 58(1), 83–86. https://doi.org/10.4103/0019-5545.174390. Goldstein, R.  B., Lee, A.  K., Haynie, D.  L., Luk, J.  W., Fairman, B.  J., Liu, D., Jeffers, J.  S., Simons-Morton, B. G., & Gilman, S. E. (2019). Neighbourhood disadvantage and depressive symptoms among adolescents followed into emerging adulthood. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 73(7), 590–597. https://doi.org/10.1136/jech-2018-212004. Gulczyńska, A. (2019). Stigma and the doomed-to-fail school careers of young people from disadvantaged neighbourhoods. Children’s Geographies, 17(4), 413–426. https://doi.org/10.1080 /14733285.2018.1536775. Guo, Y., Rousseau, J., Hsu, A.  S., Kehoe, P., Daviss, M., Flores, S., Renno, P., Saunders, K., Phillips, S., & Evangelista, L. S. (2019). Emotional and behavioral health needs in elementary school students in an underserved Hispanic community. Journal of School Nursing, 35(2), 128–136. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059840517726857. Hall, N. L. (2019). Challenges of WASH in remote Australian indigenous communities. Journal of Water Sanitation and Hygiene for Development, 9(3), 429–437. https://doi.org/10.2166/ washdev.2019.154.

64

A. Opačić

Hastings, J.  F., & Snowden, L.  R. (2019). African Americans and Caribbean blacks: Perceived neighborhood disadvantage and depression. Journal of Community Psychology, 47(2), 227– 237. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcop.22117. Huyer-May, B., Schmiedeberg, C., & Schumann, N. (2018). Neighborhood effects on children’s subjective deprivation: Are poor children’s perceptions of the economic situation in their home influenced by their neighborhood? Child Indicators Research, 11(1), 291–305. https://doi. org/10.1007/s12187-017-9445-z. Islam, M., & Sultana, N. (2019). Risk factors for pregnancy related complications among urban slum and non-slum women in Bangladesh. BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth, 19(1), 1–7. https:// doi.org/10.1186/s12884-019-2392-6. Jaryum, K. H., Okoye, Z. S. C., & Stoecker, B. (2018). Hair zinc: An index for zinc status in underfive children from low-income communities in Kanam area of North-Central Nigeria. Biological Trace Element Research, 183(2), 183–191. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12011-017-1133-9. Jones, K. A., Jaime, M. C. D., Zelazny, S., Torres, I. J., Feliz, N. B., Bamwine, P. M., Eugene, J. M., & Miller, E. (2017). Pregnancy intentions and pregnancy risk among adolescent males in socially disadvantaged neighborhoods. Journal of Adolescent Health, 60(2), S105. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2016.10.387. Joury, E., Bernabe, E., Gallagher, J.  E., & Marcenes, W. (2018). Burden of orofacial pain in a socially deprived and culturally diverse area of the United Kingdom. Pain, 159(7), 1235–1243. https://doi.org/10.1097/j.pain.0000000000001203. Kane, J. B., Miles, G., Yourkavitch, J., & King, K. (2017). Neighborhood context and birth outcomes: Going beyond neighborhood disadvantage, incorporating affluence. SSM – Population Health, 3, 699–712. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssmph.2017.08.003. Khalequzzaman, M., Chiang, C., Hoque, B.  A., Choudhury, S.  R., Nizam, S., Yatsuya, H., Matsuyama, A., Hirakawa, Y., Islam, S. S., Iso, H., & Aoyama, A. (2017). Population profile and residential environment of an urban poor community in Dhaka, Bangladesh. Environmental Health and Preventive Medicine, 22(1), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12199-017-0610-2. Kleinepier, T., & van Ham, M. (2018). The temporal dynamics of neighborhood disadvantage in childhood and subsequent problem behavior in adolescence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 47(8), 1611–1628. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-018-0878-6. Kusuma, Y. S., Kaushal, S., Garg, R., & Babu, B. V. (2018). Birth preparedness and determinants of birth place among migrants living in slums and slum-like pockets in Delhi, India. Sexual & Reproductive Healthcare, 16, 160–166. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.srhc.2018.04.004. Lam, R., Byers, K. A., & Himsworth, C. G. (2018). Beyond zoonosis: The mental health impacts of rat exposure on impoverished urban neighborhoods. Journal of Environmental Health, 81(4), 8–11. Lei, M.-K., Simons, R. L., Beach, S. R. H., & Philibert, R. A. (2017). Neighborhood disadvantage and biological aging: Using marginal structural models to assess the link between neighborhood census variables and epigenetic aging. The Journals of Gerontology: Series B, 74(7), e50–e59. https://doi.org/10.1093/geronb/gbx015. Levy, B. L., Owens, A., & Sampson, R. J. (2019). The varying effects of neighborhood disadvantage on college graduation: Moderating and mediating mechanisms. Sociology of Education, 92(3), 269–292. https://doi.org/10.1177/0038040719850146. Lin, P.  S., Guo, R., Bialkowska-Jelinska, E., Kourtellis, A., & Zhang, Y. (2019). Development of countermeasures to effectively improve pedestrian safety in low-income areas. Journal of Traffic and Transportation Engineering (English Edition), 6(2), 162–174. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.jtte.2019.02.001. Loh, V. H. Y., Rachele, J. N., Brown, W. J., Washington, S., & Turrell, G. (2016). Neighborhood disadvantage, individual-level socioeconomic position and physical function: A cross-­ sectional multilevel analysis. Preventive Medicine, 89, 112–120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. ypmed.2016.05.007. Loh, V. H. Y., Rachele, J. N., Brown, W. J., Ghani, F., & Turrell, G. (2018). Neighborhood disadvantage and physical function: The contributions of neighborhood-level perceptions of safety from crime and walking for recreation. Journal of Physical Activity and Health, 15(8), 553– 563. https://doi.org/10.1123/jpah.2017-0423.

2  Effects of Living in Disadvantaged Neighbourhoods on Personal Well-Being

65

Longfield, D., & Tooley, J. (2017). School choice and parental preferences in a poor area of Monrovia. International Journal of Educational Development, 53(2017), 117–127. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.ijedudev.2016.08.006. Luan, H., Minaker, L.  M., & Law, J. (2016). Do marginalized neighbourhoods have less healthy retail food environments? An analysis using Bayesian spatial latent factor and hurdle models. International Journal of Health Geographics, 15(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/ s12942-016-0060-x. Madiba, S., Chelule, P. K., & Mokgatle, M. M. (2019). Attending informal preschools and daycare centers is a risk factor for underweight, stunting and wasting in children under the age of five years in underprivileged communities in South Africa. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 16(14), 2589. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16142589. Maguire-Jack, K., & Font, S. A. (2017). Intersections of individual and neighborhood disadvantage: Implications for child maltreatment. Children and Youth Services Review, 72, 44–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2016.10.015. Mason, P., Curl, A., & Kearns, A. (2016). Domains and levels of physical activity are linked to adult mental health and wellbeing in deprived neighbourhoods: A cross-sectional study. Mental Health and Physical Activity, 11, 19–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mhpa.2016.07.001. Mendes, A., Galvão, P., de Sousa, J., da Silva, I., & Carneiro, R. N. (2019). Relations of the groundwater quality and disorderly occupation in an Amazon low-income neighborhood developed over a former dump area, Santarém/PA, Brazil. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 21(1), 353–368. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-017-0040-8. Mendoza, E. (2017). Factores intra y extra escolares asociados al rezago educativo en comunidades vulnerables. Alteridad, 12(1), 79–91. https://doi.org/10.17163/alt.v12n1.2017.07. Morelli, V., Ziegler, C., & Fawibe, O. (2017). Environmental justice and underserved communities. Primary Care  – Clinics in Office Practice, 44(1), 155–170. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. pop.2016.09.016. Müller, I., Yap, P., Steinmann, P., Damons, B. P., Schindler, C., Seelig, H., Htun, N. S. N., ProbstHensch, N., Gerber, M., Du Randt, R., Pühse, U., Walter, C., & Utzinger, J. (2016). Intestinal parasites, growth and physical fitness of schoolchildren in poor neighbourhoods of Port Elizabeth, South Africa: A cross-sectional survey. Parasites and Vectors, 9(1), 1–13. https:// doi.org/10.1186/s13071-016-1761-5. Murimi, M. W., Kanyi, M. G., Mupfudze, T., Mbogori, T. N., & Amin, M. R. (2016). Prevalence of food insecurity in low-income neighborhoods in West Texas. Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior, 48(9), 625–630.e1. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneb.2016.07.003. Ochako, R., Izugbara, C., Okal, J., Askew, I., & Temmerman, M. (2016). Contraceptive method choice among women in slum and non-slum communities in Nairobi, Kenya. BMC Women’s Health, 16(1), 35. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12905-016-0314-6. Owens, A., & Candipan, J. (2019). Social and spatial inequalities of educational opportunity: A portrait of schools serving high- and low-income neighbourhoods in US metropolitan areas. Urban Studies, 56(15), 3178–3197. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098018815049. Prakash, R., Beattie, T., Javalkar, P., Bhattacharjee, P., Ramanaik, S., Thalinja, R., Murthy, S., Davey, C., Blanchard, J., Watts, C., Collumbien, M., Moses, S., Heise, L., & Isac, S. (2017). Correlates of school dropout and absenteeism among adolescent girls from marginalized community in North Karnataka, South India. Journal of Adolescence, 61, 64–76. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2017.09.007. Rachele, J. N., Wood, L., Nathan, A., Giskes, K., & Turrell, G. (2016). Neighbourhood disadvantage and smoking: Examining the role of neighbourhood-level psychosocial characteristics. Health and Place, 40, 98–105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthplace.2016.04.012. Rachele, J. N., Kavanagh, A. M., Brown, W. J., Healy, A. M., & Turrell, G. (2018). Neighborhood disadvantage and body mass index: A study of residential relocation. American journal of epidemiology., 187(8), 1696–1703. https://doi.org/10.1093/aje/kwx390. Raju, D., Kim, K. Y., Nguyen, Q. T., & Govindaraj, R. (2018). Cities, slums, and child nutrition in Bangladesh. Review of Development Economics, 23(2), 760–781. https://doi.org/10.1111/ rode.12564.

66

A. Opačić

Reboussin, B. A., Milam, A. J., Green, K. M., Ialongo, N. S., & Furr-Holden, C. D. M. (2016). Clustering of black adolescent marijuana use in low-income, urban neighborhoods. Journal of Urban Health, 93(1), 109–116. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11524-015-0014-9. Riley, A. (2017). Neighborhood disadvantage, residential segregation, and beyond-lessons for studying structural racism and health. Journal of racial and ethnic health disparities., 5, 357– 365. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40615-017-0378-5. Roe, J., Aspinall, P. A., & Thompson, C. W. (2016). Understanding relationships between health, ethnicity, place and the role of urban green space in deprived urban communities. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 13(7), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.3390/ ijerph13070681. Ronchi, S., & Arcidiacono, A. (2018). Adopting an ecosystem services-based approach for flood resilient strategies: The case of Rocinha favela (Brazil). Sustainability, 11(1), 1–13. https://doi. org/10.3390/su11010004. Sajid, I., Masih, S., & Nawaz, I. (2019). Awareness and living practices of slum dwellers regarding health of their children: A case study of slum communities of Islamabad, Pakistan. Rawal Medical Journal, 44(4), 823–826. Salmi, H., Kuisma, M., Rahiala, E., Lääperi, M., & Harve-Rytsälä, H. (2018). Children in disadvantaged neighbourhoods have more out-of-hospital emergencies: A population-based study. Archives of Disease in Childhood, 103(11), 1048–1053. https://doi.org/10.1136/ archdischild-2017-314153. Satariano, B. (2019). Diverse socioeconomic processes influencing health and wellbeing across generations in deprived neighbourhoods in Malta. Social Science and Medicine, 232, 453–459. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2018.09.033. Shuhong, L., Li, J., & Tao, H. (2019). Logistic model-based measurement and analysis of factors affecting poverty in underdeveloped areas. In Proceedings of the 2019 2nd International Conference on Electronics, Communications and Control Engineering – ICECC 2019. https:// doi.org/10.1145/3324033.3324050. Slain, K. N., Shein, S. L., Stormorken, A. G., Broberg, M. C. G., & Rotta, A. T. (2018). Outcomes of children with critical bronchiolitis living in poor communities. Clinical Pediatrics, 57(9), 1027–1032. https://doi.org/10.1177/0009922817740666. Snyder, R. E., Boone, C. E., Cardoso, C. A. A., Aguiar-Alves, F., Neves, F. P. G., & Riley, L. W. (2017). Zika: A scourge in urban slums. PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases, 11(3), 5–8. https:// doi.org/10.1371/journal.pntd.0005287. Stattin, H., Svensson, Y., & Korol, L. (2019). Schools can be supporting environments in disadvantaged neighborhoods. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 43(5), 383–392. https://doi.org/10.1177/0165025419833824. Tabuchi, T., Fujihara, S., Shinozaki, T., & Fukuhara, H. (2018). Determinants of high-school dropout: A longitudinal study in a deprived area of Japan. Journal of Epidemiology, 28(11), 458–464. https://doi.org/10.2188/jea.JE20170163. Tanggaard Andersen, P., Holst Algren, M., Fromsejer Heiberg, R., Joshi, R., & Kronborg Bak, C. (2018). Social network resources and self-rated health in a deprived Danish neighborhood. Health Promotion International, 33(6), 999–1009. https://doi.org/10.1093/heapro/dax051. Theuri, S. W., McCullough, J. L., & Rennels, J. (2016). Assessing access to fruit and vegetable in urban underserved communities. Journal of Hunger and Environmental Nutrition, 11(1), 59–71. https://doi.org/10.1080/19320248.2015.1045669. Tillyer, M.  S., & Walter, R.  J. (2019). Low-income housing and crime: The influence of housing development and neighborhood characteristics. Crime and Delinquency, 65(7), 969–993. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011128718794185. Tomek, S., Burton, S., Hooper, L.  M., Bolland, A., & Bolland, J. (2018). Suicidality in black American youth living in impoverished neighborhoods: Is school connectedness a protective factor? School Mental Health, 10(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12310-017-9241-4. Trapl, E. S., Pike, S. N., Borawski, E., Flocke, S. A., Freedman, D. A., Walsh, C. C., Schneider, C.  B. A., & Yoder, L.  M. P.  H. (2017). Food melt in consumer food environments in low-­ income urban neighborhoods. American Journal of Health Behavior, 41(6), 710–718. https:// doi.org/10.5993/AJHB.41.6.5.

2  Effects of Living in Disadvantaged Neighbourhoods on Personal Well-Being

67

Troxel, W.  M., Shih, R.  A., Ewing, B., Tucker, J.  S., Nugroho, A., & D’Amico, E.  J. (2017). Examination of neighborhood disadvantage and sleep in a multi-ethnic cohort of adolescents. Health and Place, 45, 39–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthplace.2017.03.002. Tsai, K., Simiyu, S., Mumma, J., Aseyo, R.  E., Cumming, O., Dreibelbis, R., & Baker, K.  K. (2019). Enteric pathogen diversity in infant foods in low-income neighborhoods of Kisumu, Kenya. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 16(3), 506. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16030506. van der Greft, S., & Droogleever Fortuijn, J. (2017). Multiple disadvantage of older migrants and native Dutch older adults in deprived neighbourhoods in Amsterdam, the Netherlands: A life course perspective. GeoJournal, 82(3), 415–432. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10708-015-9691-x. Vaughan, C. A., Colabianchi, N., Hunter, G. P., Beckman, R., & Dubowitz, T. (2018). Park use in low-income urban neighborhoods: Who uses the parks and why? Journal of Urban Health, 95(2), 222–231. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11524-017-0221-7. Vogel, M., & South, S. J. (2016). Spatial dimensions of the effect of neighborhood disadvantage on delinquency. Criminology, 54(3), 434–458. https://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9125.12110. Vuvor, F., Steiner-Asiedu, M., & Saalia, F. K. (2017). Lifestyles characteristics and prevalence of anaemia among men living in deprived community, Ghana. Journal of Medical and Biomedical Sciences, 6(3), 7–14. https://doi.org/10.4314/jmbs.v6i3.2. Wang, D., Schwanen, T., & Mao, Z. (2019). Does exposure to richer and poorer neighborhoods influence wellbeing? Cities, 95, 102408. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2019.102408. Wanyama, R., Gödecke, T., & Qaim, M. (2019). Food security and dietary quality in African slums. Sustainability, 11(21), 5999. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11215999. Watts, P., Buck, D., Netuveli, G., & Renton, A. (2016). Clustering of lifestyle risk behaviours among residents of forty deprived neighbourhoods in London: Lessons for targeting public health interventions. Journal of Public Health (United Kingdom), 38(2), 308–315. https://doi. org/10.1093/pubmed/fdv028. Watts, P., Hayee Shahid, M., Bertotti, M., & Tobi, P. (2017). Social, cognitive, behavioural and neighbourhood characteristics associated with sedentary time in men and women living in deprived neighbourhoods. European Journal of Sport Science, 17(7), 904–912. https://doi.org /10.1080/17461391.2017.1323951. Wing, J.  J., Sánchez, B.  N., Adar, S.  D., Meurer, W.  J., Morgenstern, L.  B., Smith, M.  A., & Lisabeth, L.  D. (2017). Synergism of short-term air pollution exposures and neighborhood disadvantage on initial stroke severity. Stroke, 48(11), 3126–3129. https://doi.org/10.1161/ STROKEAHA.117.018816. Yun, I., & Lee, J. (2016). Neighborhood disadvantage and parenting: Behavioral genetics evidence of Child effects. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 60(13), 1549–1568. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X15581451. Zaman, T. U., Goswami, H. D., & Hassan, Y. (2018). The impact of growth and development of slums on the health status and health awareness of slum dwellers. International Journal of Medical Research & Health Sciences, 7(3), 55–65. www.ijmrhs.com. Zhang, Y., Huang, X., Yang, Y., Liu, X., Yang, C., Wang, A., Wang, Y., & Zhou, H. (2018). Double burden of malnutrition among children under 5 in poor areas of China. PLoS One, 13(9), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0204142. Zygmunt, A., Kendall, C. E., James, P., Lima, I., Tuna, M., & Tanuseputro, P. (2019). Avoidable mortality rates decrease but inequity gaps widen for marginalized neighborhoods: A population-­ based analysis in Ontario, Canada from 1993 to 2014. Journal of Community Health, 45(3), 579–597. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10900-019-00778-8.

Chapter 3

Principles of Community Development and Challenges Facing Deprived Communities Nino Žganec and Ana Opačić

3.1  Fundamental Principles of Community Development Practices and processes in communities from the beginning of their development have been linked to principles reflecting specific value-orientated foundations and upon which the profession of social work profession is based. Social work as a value ‘biased’ profession has a value-based orientation stemming from humanistic principles and the best democratic traditions. The value-based determinants of social work can be described in terms of the requirements and postulates of numerous authors. Kamphuis (1958, cited in Boer and Utermann 1970) emphasises the singularity and uniqueness of each person in their possibilities and limitations, respecting the freedom of other people which affords them the right to make decisions in resolving their personal problems within the existing legal order, including the right to refuse help if problems are not life threatening. This view in applying the method leads to the client’s right to self-determination, readiness and opening to cultural characteristics including their manner of life as well as viewing the person without any social or religious prejudices. Accordingly, it also involves acceptance and tolerance, an openness to threats encountered in human interaction, especially in helping interactions, and therefore a readiness for taking personal control and implementing discipline in the relationship and control by others. Similar aspects are emphasised by Friedlaender (1958 cited in Boer and Utermann 1970) who cites the principles of recognising each person’s value. This principle defines the behaviour of social workers in their work with people and interaction with clients, whether it involves an individual, group or community, as well as recognising the right to self-determination given to the person, group and community. Here the emphasis rests on the right to receiving help and self-help, not only for the individual but also the group and N. Žganec (*) · A. Opačić Faculty of Law, Department of Social Work, University of Zagreb, Zagreb, Croatia e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected] © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 A. Opačić (ed.), Practicing Social Work in Deprived Communities, European Social Work Education and Practice, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-65987-5_3

69

70

N. Žganec and A. Opačić

community. Emphasis is also placed on the conviction that people are able to change their behaviours and attitudes. The ability to grow and develop as an individual but also as a group or community is recognised, including the belief that all people should have equal opportunities. These opportunities are limited only by the inherent abilities of the individual, and the conviction that the right to self-respect, values, self-determination and equality for each person in terms of opportunities must be grounded in social responsibility towards one’s self, family and society. Work practices in communities have been gradually conceptualised through practical projects and theoretical elaborations by numerous experts and theorists. Early contributions addressing social work issues in communities came from the renowned Lane Report (Lane 1939) in which, among other things, it emphasised that the concept of ‘community organisation’ refers not only to a particular process but also an area of activity as is the case with the concept of medicine and law. The Lane Report also highlights that community organisation processes are established as internal and external social work, and within social work there are institutions which undertake the task of community organisation as their primary activity. This means that they explicitly serve that purpose, and institutions that fulfil some other function of social work, but using of techniques and strategies in community organisation, can further improve their work. This also includes the process of community organisation within social work which takes place at the level of the actual locality, federal states and the country and also between them, where institutions with the primary function of community organisation generally do not offer direct assistance to clients. These definitions meant that later development of community social work was strongly directed, where definitions served more to differentiate social work from other fields developed within the social work profession. As a wide area of activity, community social work throughout its history developed in various directions and was practiced under various names including community development, community organisation, community building, community mobilisation and many others. Though within each of these concepts there are numerous specificities which include goals, methods and techniques, even theoretical foundations upon which they are based, nonetheless what connects them is a specific value orientation and key principles. Importantly, what is noticeable is that the value orientation and principles are linked to (but also stem from) specific theoretical precepts on which the practice of community work rests, as well as specific approaches which determine the purpose, goals and also the community work methodology. To that end, an interesting approach is the specific idea and type of elaboration provided by Buck (1977) in which five basic normative orientations of various concepts are differentiated, where community organisation is approached in terms of socio-political strategies and methods of social work. Specifically, Buck considers that elaborating a historical development of community organisation identifies (a) socio-conservative concepts of community development (Boer and Utermann 1970; Hungerbuehler and Hungerbühler 1972; Ross 1955), (b) socio-reform concepts (Hoebel and Seibert 1973; Specht 1971), (c) radical-democratic concepts (Alynski 1973; Reckmann 1971), (d) socio-ethical concepts , for example, Catholic social teaching and evangelical social ethics (Karrenberg 1965; Matthes 1964) and (e) socialistic concepts.

3  Principles of Community Development and Challenges Facing Deprived Communities

71

Among the more historically known definitions of community social work (community organisation) is certainly the definition presented by Ross (1955) who noted that it involves “a process during which the community identifies its needs and goals, ranks them, develops trust and the will to undertake some action in that regard, as well as mobilise internal and external resources for meeting those needs and, accordingly, expand and develop cooperative attitudes and practice in the community” (Ross 1955). This definition, opposed to earlier ones incorporating only a partial approach, implies certain important features of community social work, such as coordinating needs, participation from community members, intention to improve interpersonal relationships and particular phases of the process. Authors involved in social work in the later period continue with this line of thought in a certain manner and further elaborated Ross’s approach by introducing numerous novel approaches to developing specific principles based on the value aspects of the profession. For instance, Biklen (1983) makes a link between community work practice and the principles of justice, autonomy and freedom, life in the community, individuality, social responsibility, public responsibility, self-determination and change. Later, Gardner (1994) highlighted the nine elements of community building which, in itself, also contain specific principles. They are principles of entirety which include diversity, basic common values, care, trust and teamwork, successful internal communication, participation, affirmation, extra-community relationships, development of young people, a view towards the future and institutional agreements necessary for maintaining the community. Hardcastle and Powers (2004) point out some specific issues relating to community practice, which stem from general ethical principles of social work. This includes issues such as whether a social worker is primarily directed to clients or the cause of problems, who is the client and how are decisions on community self-determination achieved, who provides informed consent for the community and what should be the nature of the professional relationship between the professional and client in order to avoid abusing a position of power. Reisch (2005) described community organisation with the aim of achieving social justice as radical organising efforts directed to achieving fundamental structural and institutional changes in the community and society, whereas Dominelli (2011) highlights the feministic principles of social action relating to political inclusion and the creation of a society without oppression of any type. Based on ethical principles written in the NASW Code of Ethics, Gamble and Weil (2010) highlighted community work principles as interdependency, empowerment, reciprocity, partnership and mutuality in work, civic participation and community participation, human rights and social justice as well as a structural analysis and approach. Moreover, they pointed out that the values of community practice, not just historically but also now, are directed primarily to human rights, social justice and emancipation. Based on many years of experience in undertaking and observing community development processes, Vincent II (2009) cites the following ten key principles: (1) self-help and self-responsibility as a precondition for successful development; (2) participation in making public decision which must be free and responsible; (3) wide representation and wide perspective and understanding as preconditions for successful community development; (4) the need to use methods that offer precise

72

N. Žganec and A. Opačić

information in order to evaluate the community, identifying key issues, such as strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats (SWOT analysis); (5) understanding and general consensus as the basis for community change; (6) the right of individuals to be heard in public debates whether they agree or disagree with community rules; (7) the right of all citizens to participate in forming and transforming their community; (8) responsibility towards respecting others and their views; (9) disagreement which should be directed to problems and solutions, and not at particularities, personal or political power; and (10) trust as a core component for successful working relationships which must be developed within the community before it is able to achieve its full potential. The principles that remain as the foundation for community work stem from democratic values which emphasise the importance of including people in making decisions that affect their lives. Accordingly, it becomes important to identify the principles of community practice based on the aspect of strength (as viewed by different authors). Here emphasis is placed on principles such as those whereby people have different types of strengths, motivation is based on nurturing strength, community practitioners should establish mutual working relationships and partnerships with community members and community organisations in order to nurture strength and empower groups, community in themselves possess various types of power, collective success empowers groups enabling them to assume greater control over the circumstances of their lives and develop and sense of ownership by working on challenges and solving problems, and what we cannot achieve on our own, we can do together. The richness of value-orientated community work can be observed in principles incorporating an approach to sustainable community development (Gamble and Hoff 2005). This highlights the principles of the uniqueness of the human race and life on earth, minimalisation of violence, preserving the quality of the environment, meeting the minimum standards for well-being in the world, primacy of human dignity, preservation of diversity and pluralism as well as the need for universal participation. In referring to the historical development of community intervention, O’Connor (2008) noted the need to plan community intervention in cooperation with professional and citizens and which should be established on the principle of civic participation. The author points out some of the existing tensions between providers of private services and providers of public intervention, grassroots planning as well as external professionals and others. Among the most prominent and comprehensive presentations of community development principles is that provided by Jim Ife (2013) who positions the principles of community development within modern challenges and sustainable global development. Ife (2013) categorises the principles as fundamental, that is, those relating to community processes, and principles set between the global and local in contemporary society. The fundamental principles of community development follow numerous earlier cited principles. Ife (2013) lists the following principles: the holistic approach, sustainability, respecting diversity within and between communities, organic and balanced development, mutuality and identifying and eliminating structural barriers and inequalities in positions of power, as well as principles that refer to development based on defined needs, available resources and autochthonic capacities while emphasising the principle of community ownership of its processes

3  Principles of Community Development and Challenges Facing Deprived Communities

73

and goods. In addition to fundamental principles, Ife (2013) also cites the importance of balancing qualitative processes and desired outcomes including tasks achieved in the community and the fact that community development should not be contrary to the principles of inclusivity, non-violence and the constant strengthening of the community’s social fabric. Finally, Ife (2013) also comments on the important principle of constructively linking global and local as well as anticolonialism. Interestingly, the principles relating to the practice of indirect community work can also be found in some methodological processes which are used by professionals for community work in their research. Hence, in addition to the method of participatory evaluation of rural areas, Castelloe and Gamble (2005) also mention principles described as “handing over the baton” to local inhabitants, positioning local inhabitants as the experts, respecting local knowledge, inclusivity, believing in local capacities, creating data from the actual inhabitants and acting in a way that may be contrary to formally an acquired education. Furthermore, Chávez et  al. (2004) described the principles of community-based participatory research that include the importance of local particularities and place attention on social, economic and cultural conditions affecting the health status of inhabitants, including the importance of development, applying and evaluating action plans used by the community, the importance of strengthening the community’s capabilities, the importance of including partners in the main phases of the research process and the conducting of research which strengthens cooperation between partners and the importance of undertaking projects through open communication, as well as implementing, interpreting and disseminating the results back to community members using clear and relevant language. Finally, what should also be mentioned is that interventions in a community can essentially be differentiated from other interventions in social work in terms of specific principles upon which they are based. For instance, Stagner and Duran (1997) described community interventions in terms of the principles of comprehensiveness, coordination, integrity, cooperation, responsibility, flexibility, preventive orientation and orientation towards the family and community, inclusivity, using the potential of power, sensitivity to individual differences and universal availability in terms of availability for all those community inhabitants which need them. Undoubtedly, insisting on clearly recognisable practical principles of social work in the community follows the values of the profession in which it takes place, but is in some way also expanded by introducing into social work the highest ethical standards especially prominent in the requirements for direct participation, inclusion and unconditional trust towards citizen in a collaborative relationship with experts. This kind of practical contribution to community work has not remained unnoticed in the numerous practical projects for the development of local democracy, bettering the quality of life, especially in combatting poverty in various parts of the world, raising the level of quality in education, rural and urban development and also creating local and national systems of social policies. Numerous principles which are advocated in terms of practical community work during the recent decades have become an integral part of international conventions (e.g. international conventions on the rights of people with disabilities) and regional strategies (e.g. European Pillar of Social Rights), as well as national plans, laws and initiatives.

74

N. Žganec and A. Opačić

3.2  C  hallenges in Achieving the Principle of Community Development in Deprived Communities The presentation of community development principles over a number of decades shows us the continuity provided by theorists in their way of thinking. We can say that there is almost a unanimous consensus concerning what community development should be and how it should be done. In brief, principles of community development can be grouped as follows: 1. Holistic sustainable community development 2. Development based on local resources and capacities 3. Participation in community development 4. Strengthening social capital and community relations 5. Adhering to human rights, social justice and eliminating inequalities 6. Inclusion, nurturing diversity and a culture of non-violence 7. Community ownership and autonomy towards the surrounding environment Though there seems to be no dispute concerning these principles in recent literature, implementation is a particular challenge in deprived communities where the onus of hindered development generates numerous difficulties which in turn hinder community development at the process level. We have previously presented, on the basis of numerous empirical researches, that life in deprived communities creates difficulties in different areas of personal well-being and that deprived communities face significant structural limitations. This position creates deficit capacities and resources needed for personal development and community development. An atmosphere of limited resources results in not only internal processes of development not being achieved in the desired way but also certain harmful processes appearing as an added burden for development of the community and its members. Process challenges and also harmful processes can be grouped as follows: (a) Processes relating to oppression of the community and structural inequalities (b) Processes relating to oppressive relationships within the community and social disorganisation (c) Reduced social cohesion and insufficient community participation (d) Reduced sense of belonging to and experiencing the community

3.2.1  O  ppressive Policies and Practices Against Deprived Communities Numerous examples throughout the world show how deprived communities do not lack the essential local resources but very often are subjected to their unjustified exploitation. External interventions on deprived communities occur most often in the form of privatisation and rezoning of certain areas, pollution and degradation of the environment as well as projects for community renewal which consequently

3  Principles of Community Development and Challenges Facing Deprived Communities

75

leads to the process of gentrification (Derkzen et  al. 2017). This also includes a policy of forced relocation of some of the inhabitants (either to or from the community). This is often the case with slums and favelas (Kolling 2019; Offer 2010), where a more radical approach is used against slums, meaning their total destruction (Anderson 1928; Contractor 2008). It is also not irrelevant that the locations of these neighbourhoods may be attractive in terms of transport position or natural resources. Forced relocation of the population driven to the edge of survival leads to the reactive formation of new spontaneous communities which ordinarily have even poorer living conditions (Westaway 2009). Processes involving the relocating of populations often occur in wartime (Miljenović 2015) and when a larger number of forced migrants appear, such as has been the case in recent years. Communities become especially exhausted due (unjustifiably) to the privatisation of basic resources, such as is the case with the privatisation of lands, mineral deposits or water sources (Magole 2009). Hence a paradox occurs where the local population spends most on water sources located in the community’s actual territory (Marvin and Laurie 1999). A similar example is found in a deprived community in Croatia where natural minerals were given concessionised to an external bidder, while local entrepreneurs import the same minerals from neighbouring countries at unfavourable prices (Miljenović and Žganec 2012). Especially contentious is when external actors are employed in rare but highly desirable working positions without directly encouraging the creation of a quality local workforce which would be employed in such positions (Miljenović 2015). Regarding pollution and devastation of the environment, it is not a rare occurrence that deprived communities become a waste depot for even hazardous waste such as asbestos and medical, nuclear or radioactive waste. The business is based on waste depots which can bring quick and larger profit than does the business in separating and recycling waste. Using an example of a deprived community in Croatia, Žganec and Opačić (2018) investigated the process of constructing a nuclear and radioactive waste depot. Parts of the scenario in these processes seem to be always similar throughout the world. There is no transparent communication with the community, nor is there clear and unambiguous analysis of direct and indirect risks, and messages concerning processes that carry no risks are predominantly disseminated, the population becomes enthralled with magical numbers concerning financial benefit without any arguments as to the justification of the number, the community is sought for its opinion without prior clear communication as to the basis of the opinion and what effect it will have on the community, and finally the waste depot is presented as an entrepreneurial project providing the last chance of any development. The final more active forms of intervention are programmes for community renewal, which refer most to renewal of infrastructure and the environment, and may also include the targeted creation of mixed-income communities by attracting higher-income inhabitants (Lupton and Fuller 2009). Consequently, this leads to gentrification so that instead of a political, what we have is the economic expulsion of the population given that costs of living begin to rise (Bridge 2003). However, though these programmes are expected to increase the standard of living, the results of empirical studies indicate that they do not provide a clear answer as to whether

76

N. Žganec and A. Opačić

that actually happens. For instance, research in Northern Ireland covering 3500 participants from 2000 households showed that the process of neighbourhood renewal had not led to a reduction of developmental inequalities in terms of employment, unemployment, income, receiving social benefits and subjective assessment of the financial situation (Mohan et al. 2020). Finally, we also note some other examples of the exploitation of communities and their inhabitants. We would intuitively think that life in deprived communities is more affordable compared to life in developed communities. However, poor supply of goods and services on the domestic market and the absence of choice for consumers often lead to the opposite effect: high prices for goods and services exhibiting poorer quality but supplied by lucrative providers (Marvin and Laurie 1999; Newman 2011). What should also be pointed out is the danger to the local population in terms of taking on debt and speculative loans where an equal threat may be posed by internal as well as external actors (Anderson et al. 2005). Finally, it should also be mentioned that the community becomes very vulnerable if it remains forgotten in moments of crisis and catastrophe (Eisenman et  al. 2007; Martsolf et al. 2006; Souza et al. 2007; Sukowati et al. 2012). The stigma of deprived communities is also a catalyser and consequence of oppressive practices. Stigma is conditioned by complex relationships between an internal and external identity, especially if the population is forcibly inhabited or relocated, and the community is attributed the characteristic of a disenfranchised population labelled as violent or incapable (Owusu et al. 2008) or some other crisis event that has marked the community’s development such as war (Miljenović 2015). Consequently, deprived communities remain socially, politically and economically excluded (Brann-Barret 2010). Accordingly, one of the most controversial practices over the past decades has been the slums or favelas or dark tourism where poverty, suffering and community problems are sold as a tourist product. However, some authors and researchers pose the question of whether it involves the altruistic, adventuristic or voyeuristic motives of tourists; nonetheless there is some basis to experience something unknown (Dürr and Jaffe 2012). Nonetheless, what remains unclear is whether this kind of offer on the tourism market changes the community’s perception or cements it in negative characteristics, even when reality no longer seems stereotypical as we assume it to be.

3.2.2  O  ppressive Relationships Within the Community and Social Disorganisation Thinking intuitively again, we could think that if a community is already in an unequal position, its members are also in the same situation and everyone in that community is doing it equally tough. But that is not the case. As in any other collective, when there is a limit to resources and experience of inequality from outside, sense of insecurity and lack of protection, people will begin a relentless struggle for limited resources. And yes, everyone in a deprived community goes through the hardship, but not every-

3  Principles of Community Development and Challenges Facing Deprived Communities

77

one does it hard in the same way. Scientific literature undoubtedly shows that urban deprived communities have a higher rate of violence in their communities, including crime and the breaching of social norms. The dominant theoretical frameworks able to explain this are the relative deprivation theory, social disorganisation theory and the broken windows theory (Abdullah and Issah 2016). According to the broken windows theory, smaller breaches become large ones when there is no punishment, and similarly to the social disorganisation theory, there is a deterioration of conventional social values and controls which may in turn lead to violence. It all begins with inequality. Inequality can have racial, ethnic or religious characteristics because often social groups of a lower status move into deprived communities (Bridge 2003; Hughes and Donnelly 2003; Lee 2005; Leigh Sharman 2004; Punathil 2016). Unfortunately, deprived communities most often replicate gender inequalities due to lower levels of education and stronger traditional family networks (Khan and Kraemer 2008). Finally, the population differs based on its socioeconomic status, even if all belong to the same cultural community because in such circumstances, power relationships are quickly established. As social resources become sparser, the desire to control them by minority groups becomes greater. This is one of the features of ghettos and favelas (Gaus 2008), where immigrating or forcibly relocated inhabitants face the hardest difficulties (Kolling 2019). Those possessing concentrated social or political power apply various techniques to place pressure on impoverished inhabitants (such as created debt bondage) and create clientelistic relationships to keep the population under as much domination as possible and to control the flow of new resources even from assistance programmes, as in the case of slums (Auerbach 2017). In these deeply deteriorated communities, disorder and dissatisfaction appear which through a gradual derogation of social values and norms lead to social disorganisation and an increasing tolerance towards infringements and crimes. In extreme situations, even external repressive organs lose any influence over such communities which may eventually become enclaves of violence and lawlessness. Hence, authors throughout the world have shown an increase in violence and armed conflict among the youth (Abdullahi and Issah 2016), overall a greater level of crime and violence (Fagin 1973; Jalaludin et al. 2012), destruction of property (Omole 2010), disorder (Moinat et al. 1972) and also an increase in the risk of developing behavioural disorders alongside strong peer pressure where problematic behaviour is expected and positively valued (Crane 1991). Disorder becomes the new order and social pressure leads to internalisation of deviant social norms. As a result, communities become to some extent resilient to changes. In fact, Becker (2018) showed the degree to which undeveloped communities were fragile entities and that social changes (whether positive or negative) lead to a reduction of collective effectiveness, but also an increase in unfavourable events such as the homicide rate. Nonetheless and importantly, emphasis should be placed on differences between urban and rural communities. An escalation towards riots and violence due to inequalities ordinarily is greater in more densely populated communities, which is the ordinary case in urban neighbourhoods. Rural communities also bear the burden of inequalities and disenfranchisement encountered by certain groups of citizens,

78

N. Žganec and A. Opačić

but smaller population densities and stronger informal social control stemming from traditional family networks will less often escalate into violence in the community.

3.2.3  R  educed Social Cohesion and Insufficient Community Participation Social capital is often degraded in deprived communities (Barnes et al. 2005), and interaction between their inhabitants is absent (Booth et al. 2018), including active participation of citizens in community development (Jackson et al. 2003) or other community activities (Miljenović 2015). Social cohesion is not only important for developmental activities in communities but is also beneficial for the personal wellbeing of the inhabitants. Dawson et al. (2019) conducted extensive research involving 12,105 young people in the United States and determined that perceived social cohesion in a community moderates the relationship between the underdevelopment of a community and depressive symptoms. Despite community underdevelopment, increased social cohesion will result in less symptoms of depression. When inhabitants become aware that the entire community is exposed to inequalities, especially when noticing inequalities in their impoverished surroundings, trust as the basis of social capital deteriorates. We can presume that members of deprived communities are more discouraged by internal than external inequalities, and if there is no capacity to cope with internal inequalities, bearing external inequalities becomes difficult. Social disorganisation and inequality in a community is one of the reasons for less social cohesion and less participation in the community. Saguin (2018) investigated the underlying reason why projects based on a community-led approach failed to increase participation by impoverished inhabitants in the Philippines, though the approach was intended for that very purpose. Specifically, the control of resources by community elites actually resulted in the fact that the population was not actively included, even leading to less solidarity, though it ensured direct financial assistance to the inhabitants. A similar conclusion was made by de Wit (2010) using the example of projects in slums. Regarding deprived neighbourhoods, Davies (2018) came to the conclusion that in fact social norms supporting deviant behaviour were an important obstacle to the inclusion of young people in voluntarism. Another reason for less participation is the insufficient number of persons with capacities for active social participation. Specifically, though one of the principles of community development is that each person in a community gives his contribution, Tonkens and Verhoeven (2018) cautioned that, more often than not, those with a higher education, males and whites will participate, and this picture is also reflected in deprived communities. Migration trends in deprived communities are unfavourable, and there is a tendency for emigration to jeopardise the creation of sustainable relationships (Fabricant and Fisher 2002). Moreover, emigration happens mainly with the younger generation and more educated segment of the population possessing better social capital. On the other side, the less educated segment of

3  Principles of Community Development and Challenges Facing Deprived Communities

79

the population tends to immigrate (Fransham 2017; Foulkes and Newbold 2008; Hall et al. 2018; Riley et al. 2016; Warner 2016) or retired emigrants when neither economic nor social activities can significantly contribute to community development (Miljenović 2015). Special emphasis should be placed on the issue of employing better educated professionals from proximate surroundings where the community is only a place of work for them, not a place of residence. Regardless of their capacities, they are not catalysts in the community (Miljenović 2015). The third reason for less participation is due to an insufficient culture of civic action which has been for decades and even centuries the result of interventionist state policies (Miljenović 2015) or where civic associations were specifically forbidden (DinerosPineda 1992). Social relationships are mostly closed to relationships with close persons and have no tendency to create new relationships (Liu and He 2017). Furthermore, there is no tradition of entrepreneurship, and in some classic emigrant deprived communities, the population (mostly women and children) have tended to live from income sent to families or only men working abroad and later living from these generous foreign pensions (Miljenović 2015). Overall, this leads to less involvement in the community, even though relationships in the community may not have necessarily deteriorated. Finally, Williams (2005) pointed out that populations in smaller deprived communities have not learnt to participate in formalised action groups, but their habitus more closely resembles reciprocal and informal relationships. The final and fourth reason for less participation in deprived communities lies in insufficient institutional support. Spatial inadequacy and remoteness as well as inadequate public transport are serious obstacles for inclusion in the life of a community (Venter et al. 2007). This further prevents vulnerable social groups (women, disabled persons, the elderly, youth) to become active. Deprived communities have less infrastructure in which inhabitants can participate, such as educational activities, labour market, leisure activities and civic associations (van Eijk 2010). Existing institutions ordinarily nurture a direct relationship while encouraging community activities to a less extent. In line with these findings, Kerr et  al. (2016) reviewed sixty research projects on the relationship between schools and deprived communities, concluding that the relationship was led by an agenda determined outside the community along with a passive role by the community in implementation of interventions initiated by schools. There are less examples of projects in which the community initiated activities. Additional trust by inhabitants is further deteriorated by services that threaten cutting social expenditures, as well as experts who see employment in deprived communities as an imperative (i.e. not of their choosing) and change working positions as soon as the opportunity for a better position opens up (Ward and Coates 2006).

3.2.4  R  educed Sense of Belonging to Community and Community Experience All previously mentioned processes have an intertwined relationship between community members and the actual community, meaning sense of community, community attachment and satisfaction with the community.

80

N. Žganec and A. Opačić

Satisfaction of the inhabitants with the community, as expected, is less in poorer developed communities because it is linked to the quality of relationships, physical condition, community safety and quality of public services (Ciorici and Dantzler 2018). Research results from the SPOTLIGHT project undertaken in five European regions show that inhabitants in more developed neighbourhoods have a better perception of the neighbourhood and in particular better access connectivity, social capital, attractiveness and safety of the neighbourhood (Mackenbach et al. 2016). Longitudinal research by Sharp (2018) also shows that an individual sense of fear and experience of victimisation in a community lead to poorer relationships in the neighbourhood and lower local satisfaction. Inhabitants build a relationship towards the community through their physical surroundings. This means that the physical environment strongly participates in creating a sense of spatial stigmatisation, where a degraded or destroyed environment leaves a particularly strong impression, and the proximate space provides a sense of boundary contributing to creating a collective identity (Figueroa Martínez et  al. 2019). The space can also reveal social stratification, a sense of distrust, and become a reflection of social relationships (Figueroa Martínez et al. 2019). Accordingly, it is not irrelevant how and to what extent inhabitants reside in that physical space of the community. For instance, respondents in a research on deprived areas of Edinburgh mentioned that public areas were inadequate, that is, insufficiently clean, maintained and not safe enough (Abbasi et al. 2016). Research conducted by Han et al. (2018) showed a clear link between the crime rate and sojourning in parks in low-income urban neighbourhoods. The frequency of a crime committed with a weapon per 10,000 inhabitants over a period of 6 months prior to collecting data leads to a reduction of sojourning in parks by 13–15%, where the least usage of the parks is attributed to the older population (reduction by 33–40%), whereas young people stopped using the public areas less. A person’s impression of their proximate space and sojourning habits are clearly difficult to change. Curl et al. (2018) asserted that despite extensive changes in the approach to regeneration of deprived areas, over a period of 4  years, inhabitants changed their pattern of participation in physical activities in the community to an insignificant measure, even though physical conditions in the neighbourhoods improved. Especially interesting is research conducted by Foley et al. (2018) which indicated that inhabitants are not inclined to change their neighbourhood space, even though dissatisfied with it, and accept changes with great difficulty and mistrust. Specifically, inhabitants of a lower financial status experienced changes in their surroundings as a degradation of their mental health, whereas persons with a higher income accepted changes better and experienced greater well-being. Naturally, the population evaluates their physical environment differently depending on the availability of green areas. Hence, respondents in Korea, as opposed to people from European deprived communities, utilised green areas more often which are generally a luxury in densely population countries (Lee et al. 2016). However, it would be a mistake to generally conclude that a population’s relationship towards their deprived community is negative. Specifically, we pointed out earlier that numerous such communities feature a specific local identity making them a recognisable ghetto community (Brown 1968), remote indigenous commu-

3  Principles of Community Development and Challenges Facing Deprived Communities

81

nity (Le Roux and Hendrikz 2006), whereas older populations inherit a more pronounced experience of local identity (Lindeman and Pedler 2008). Smaller communities in rural areas can be a positive influence in creating close relationships which will result in an ambivalent relationship among the inhabitants. This situation leads to developing a close nihilistic atmosphere (Miljenović 2015), even a sense of pride and protective impulse towards the community (Finn 2005; Rey-Valette et al. 2018). Close relationships can amortise unfavourable processes, prevent social disorganisation and become a leverage in strengthening collective effectiveness (Walton 2016). Research in Germany involving 1760 inhabitants, which was repeated in the Netherlands with 993 inhabitants, showed that if inhabitants are able to perceive positive social norms, their intention for emigrating will be reduced, even if living in an underdeveloped community with which they are dissatisfied. However, research has shown that inhabitants living in deprived communities will feel that their community has no influence and power and that it is dependent on external actors (Miljenović 2015), all this leading to a sense of helplessness. This conclusion enables us to return back to the beginning where we spoke about the relationship between the surroundings and deprived communities, because the phenomenon of auto-stigmatisation encourages continuation of the cycle of stigmatisation, oppression and less opportunities for development. What is the role of the practitioner in community development in terminating this vicious cycle?

3.3  H  ow to Encourage Empowering Development Processes in Deprived Communities? Previous discoveries undoubtedly indicate what proper community development should look like, especially the consensus within social work that the best and most sustainable development begins with the actual community, which is based on local resources and capacities. This enables a larger scope of stakeholders to get involved and encourages quality interpersonal and inter-institutional relationships, in which diversity is respected, human rights protected and peace propagated and in which the community assumes its autonomy, deciding on its own development and nurturing its own sustainability. However, when studying the situation of deprived communities, it becomes clear that implementing the mentioned principles is not only challenging, but there are also processes occurring against the community and destroying it as an entity. There is probably an expectation to answer the question of how then should deprived communities develop and what can we offer more than what has been mentioned so many times in community development theory. Simply said, our conclusion is that we do more and become more sensitive. Doing things differently is not possible nor practical, but more time, more resources and more patience are definitely needed and a continuity of investing into resources while taking into account the fragile fabric of deprived communities in which it is difficult to create trust but easy to lose it. More time is needed to gain trust in something new, rather

82

N. Žganec and A. Opačić

than discard old rules, in which coping with extensive social changes is difficult and where each social stressor is more intense than is the case with the other parts of society. On the one hand, deprived communities are rigid, while on the other hand, they are sensitive, and this requires finding an appropriate balance between trust and change. At the end of this chapter, we the authors suggest the following principles for taking action within deprived communities: 1. Given that deprivation is a multidimensional phenomenon, multidisciplinary collaborative models are proposed to implement projects resulting in synergetic outcomes, instead of specialised social practice. These kinds of projects require special financing mechanisms, different from those that ordinarily prefer specialisation in social action. 2. Even though the basis of development lies in local resources, ensuring prompt and adequate social, political and financial support in crisis situations is essential. External support is vital for equalising the developmental opportunities in all times, particularly in times of crisis. 3. Ensure a political framework that unambiguously prepares and empowers the community for primacy in utilisation of its own resources. 4. Prevent to the greatest possible extent an uneven burden of tasks for deprived communities which society bears with some difficulty. For instance, deprived communities cannot be the first and only choice for a planned and segregated inflow of migrants, nor should they be given the only chance for development by accepting the disposal of harmful and hazardous waste. 5. Each person in the community has their own capacity for providing a contribution. This should be especially emphasised by professionals if coming from outside since their professional authority might discourage citizens and local experts to actively participate. 6. External professionals and organisations need to cede to the greatest possible extent their leading positions to local professionals in order to strengthen their actions and their professional authority in the community and to become an example of activation to inhabitants. External professionals should serve to empower local experts and assist in developing professional networks mainly outside the community. 7. Continuity of action is key in encouraging participatory citizenship. Civic participation in community activities will not happen of its own accord, but continual work and gradually increasing the inclusion of citizens will result in the involvement of the necessary number of citizens. 8. Based on their traditions and desires, inhabitants should be provided with a pallet of activities in which they can be included and build interpersonal relationships. Formalisation of relationships through associations should be replaced by forms of informal, spontaneous associations in order to strengthen the network of relationships. 9. The keynote is to track transparency of financing, combat all forms of clientelism and concentration of significant social resources in the hands of a small

3  Principles of Community Development and Challenges Facing Deprived Communities

83

circle of people. Frequent donors and project initiators pressured to provide the quickest and most efficient action within the community may tend to establish cooperation with local politicians or experienced community leaders who begin to amass greater social power in that way. What is especially important is to analyse the distribution of inequality within the community and review the way in which wider social inequalities are revealed in deprived communities. 10. Community development should exemplify an authentic relationship towards the culture of non-violence and across a wider social level strongly resist all forms of ‘implicit’ agreements in which the breaching of social norms and violation of human and minority rights are tolerated by bodies responsible for ensuring law and order. 11. Continually investing in people and other resources is necessary for developing projects that prevent violence and encourage adherence to social norms. Especially important is ensuring the existence of safe zones which will in time increase in number and become more available to a wider circle of people. The community belongs to everyone and should be equally available to all. 12. Through a system of rewarding and recognition, the community should support positive examples which will be supporters of positive social norms and social change. 13. Professionals in cooperation with citizens should show by example that they do not support even the smallest breaching of social norms or violation of human and minority rights as it threatens to increase tolerance of further and more serious breaches. 14. The community should nurture rituals and events marking its successes and celebrate its history. Nurturing a cultural and natural heritage of which the community is proud is especially important. However, tradition should not be an alibi for constant rejection of social changes. 15. Community representatives should have clear mechanisms for participating in the regional and national decision-making process which directly or indirectly affects their development in wider social structures.

References Abbasi, A., Alalouch, C., & Bramley, G. (2016). Open space quality in deprived urban areas: User perspective and use pattern. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 216, 194–205. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.12.028. Abdullahi, A. A., & Issah, M. (2016). Theorizing youth violence in socially disadvantaged neighborhoods in Nigeria. Perspectives on Global Development and Technology, 15(4), 363–390. https://doi.org/10.1163/15691497-12341396. Alinsky, S. (1973). Leidenschaft fuer den Naechsten. Strategie und Methoden der Gemeinwesenarbeit. Gelnhausen: Burckhardthaus Verlag. Anderson, N. (1928). The slum: A project for study. Social Forces, 7(1), 87–90. https://doi. org/10.2307/3004551. Anderson, S.  G., Zhan, M., & Scott, J. (2005). Developing financial management training in low-income communities: Assessing needs and community practice implications. Journal of Community Practice, 13(4), 31–49. https://doi.org/10.1300/J125v13n04_03.

84

N. Žganec and A. Opačić

Auerbach, A. M. (2017). Neighborhood associations and the urban poor: India’s slum development committees. World Development, 96, 119–135. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2017.03.002. Barnes, J., Belsky, J., Broomfield, K. A., Dave, S., Frost, M., Melhuish, E. (2005). The national evaluation of sure start research team: Disadvantaged but different: variation among deprived communities in relation to child and family well-being. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 46(9), 952–962. Becker, J.  H. (2018). Within-Neighborhood dynamics: Disadvantage, collective efficacy, and homicide rates in Chicago. Social Problems, 66(3), 428–447. https://doi.org/10.1093/socpro/ spy013. Biklen, D.  P. (1983). Community organizing. Theory and practice. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall Inc. Boer, J., & Utermann, K. (1970). Gemeinwesenarbeit. Stuttgart: Ferdinand Enke Verlag. Booth, J. M., Lin, Y.-R., & Wei, K. (2018). Neighborhood disadvantage, residents’ distress, and online social communication: Harnessing Twitter data to examine neighborhood effects. Journal of Community Psychology, 46(7), 829–843. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcop.21975. Brann-Barrett, M. T. (2010). Renegotiating family gender identities in a disadvantaged Atlantic Canadian working-class community: Young adults’ perspectives. Community, Work & Family, 13(2), 167–187. https://doi.org/10.1080/13668800903230620. Bridge, G. (2003). Time–space trajectories in provincial gentrification. Urban Studies, 40(12), 2545–2556. https://doi.org/10.1080/0042098032000136200. Brown, B. O. (1968). An empirical study of ideology in formation. Review of Religious Research, 9(2), 79–87. https://doi.org/10.2307/3510054. Buck, G. (1977). Ueberlegungen zum Stellenwert von Gemeinwesenarbeit innerhalb der Kommunalen Sozialplanung. In M. Lukas, J. Mees-Jacobi, I. Schmitz, & E. G. Skiba (Eds.), Sozialpaedagogik/Sozialarbeit  – Eine Einfuehrung zur Praxis, Forschung und Theorie (pp. 203–230). Berlin: Verlag Volker Spiess. Castelloe, P., & Gamble, D. (2005). Participatory methods in community practice: Popular education and participatory rural appraisal. In M. Weil (Ed.), The handbook of community practice (pp. 261–275). Thousand Oaks: SAGE. Chávez, V., Israel, B., Allen, A. J., III, DeCarlo, M. F., Lichtenstein, R., Schulz, A., Bayer, I. S., & McGranaghan, R. (2004). A bridge between communities: Video-making using principles of community-based participatory research. Health Promotion Practice, 5(4), 395–403. https:// doi.org/10.1177/1524839903258067. Ciorici, P., & Dantzler, P. (2018). Neighborhood satisfaction: A study of a low-income urban community. Urban Affairs Review, 55(6), 1702–1730. https://doi.org/10.1177/1078087418755515. Contractor, Q. (2008). Understanding the impact of involuntary slum resettlement on women’s access to healthcare in Mumbai, India. Journal of Comparative Social Welfare, 24(2), 153–163. https://doi.org/10.1080/17486830802231131. Crane, J. (1991). The epidemic theory of ghettos and neighborhood effects on dropping out and teenage childbearing. American Journal of Sociology, 96(5), 1226–1259. Accessed August 1, 2020, from www.jstor.org/stable/2781341. Curl, A., Kearns, A., Macdonald, L., Mason, P., & Ellaway, A. (2018). Can walking habits be encouraged through area-based regeneration and relocation? A longitudinal study of deprived communities in Glasgow, UK. Journal of Transport & Health, 10, 44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jth.2018.06.004. Davies, J. (2018). “We’d get slagged and bullied”: Understanding barriers to volunteering among young people in deprived urban areas. Voluntary Sector Review, 9(3), 255–272. https://doi.org /10.1332/204080518X15428929349286. Dawson, C.  T., Wu, W., Fennie, K.  P., Ibañez, G., Cano, M. Á., Pettit, J.  W., & Trepka, M.  J. (2019). Perceived neighborhood social cohesion moderates the relationship between neighborhood structural disadvantage and adolescent depressive symptoms. Health & Place, 56, 88–98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthplace.2019.01.001.

3  Principles of Community Development and Challenges Facing Deprived Communities

85

de Wit, J. (2010). Decentralised management of solid waste in Mumbai slums: Informal privatisation through patronage. International Journal of Public Administration, 33(12–13), 767–777. https://doi.org/10.1080/01900692.2010.514450. Derkzen, M. L., Nagendra, H., Van Teeffelen, A. J. A., Purushotham, A., & Verburg, P. H. (2017). Shifts in ecosystem services in deprived urban areas: Understanding people’s responses and consequences for well-being. Ecology and Society, 22(1), 51. https://doi.org/10.5751/ es-09168-220151. Dineros-Pineda, J. (1992). Beyond nutrition: Empowerment in the Philippines. International Social Work, 35(2), 203–215. https://doi.org/10.1177/002087289203500209. Dominelli, L. (2011). Women in the community: Feminist principles and organising in community work. In G. Craig, M. Mayo, K. Popple, M. Shaw, & M. Taylor (Eds.), The community development reader. History, themes and issues (pp. 185–190). Bristol: The Policy Press. Dürr, E., & Jaffe, R. (2012). Theorizing slum tourism: Performing, negotiating and transforming inequality. European Review of Latin American and Caribbean Studies, 93, 113–123. Accessed August 1, 2020, www.jstor.org/stable/23294474. Eisenman, D. P., Cordasco, K. M., Asch, S., Golden, J. F., & Glik, D. (2007). Disaster planning and risk communication with vulnerable communities: Lessons from Hurricane Katrina. American Journal of Public Health, 97(Suppl 1), S109–S115. https://doi.org/10.2105/ AJPH.2005.084335. Fabricant, M., & Fisher, R. (2002). Agency based community building in low income neighborhoods  – A praxis framework. Journal of Community Practice, 10(2), 1–21. https://doi. org/10.1300/J125v10n02_01. Fagin, J. R. (1973). Community disorganization: Some critical notes. Sociological Inquiry, 43(3– 4), 123–146. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-682X.1973.tb00005.x. Figueroa Martínez, C., Hodgson, F., Mullen, C., & Timms, P. (2019). Walking through deprived neighbourhoods: Meanings and constructions behind the attributes of the built environment. Travel Behaviour and Society, 16, 171–181. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tbs.2019.05.006. Finn, J. L. (2005). La Victoria: Claiming memory, history, and justice in a Santiago Población. Journal of Community Practice, 13(3), 9–31. https://doi.org/10.1300/J125v13n03_02. Foley, L., Coombes, E., Hayman, D., Humphreys, D., Jones, A., Mitchell, R., & Ogilvie, D. (2018). Longitudinal association between change in the neighbourhood built environment and the wellbeing of local residents in deprived areas: An observational study. BMC Public Health, 18(1), 545. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-018-5459-9. Foulkes, M., & Newbold, K. B. (2008). Poverty catchments: Migration, residential mobility and population turnover in impoverished rural Illinois communities. Rural Sociology, 73(3), 440– 462. https://doi.org/10.1526/003601108785766525. Fransham, M. (2017). Income and population dynamics in deprived neighbourhoods: Measuring the poverty turnover rate using administrative data. Applied Spatial Analysis and Policy, 12(2), 275–300. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12061-017-9242-6. Gamble, D. N., & Hoff, M. D. (2005). Sustainable community development. In M. Weil (Ed.), The handbook of community practice (pp. 169–188). Thousand Oaks: Sage. Gamble, D.  N., & Weil, M. (2010). Community practice skills. Local to global perspectives. New York: Columbia University Press. Gardner, J.  W. (1994). Building community for leadership studies program. Washington, DC: Independent Sector. Gaus, H. J. (2008). Involuntary segregation and the ghetto: Disconnecting process and place. City & Community, 7(4), 353–357. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6040.2008.00271_2.x. Hall, M., Crowder, K., Spring, A., & Gabriel, R. (2018). Foreclosure migration and neighborhood outcomes: Moving toward segregation and disadvantage. Social Science Research, 70, 107–114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2017.11.006. Han, B., Cohen, D. A., Derose, K. P., Li, J., & Williamson, S. (2018). Violent crime and park use in low-income urban neighborhoods. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 54(3), 352–358. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2017.10.025.

86

N. Žganec and A. Opačić

Hardcastle, D.  A., & Powers, P.  R. (2004). Community practice. Theories and skills for social workers (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hoebel, B., & Seibert, U. (1973). Buergerinitiativen und Gemeinwesenarbeit. Muenchen: Juventa Verlag GmbH. Hughes, J., & Donnelly, C. (2003). Community relations in Northern Ireland: A shift in attitudes? Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 29(4), 643–661. https://doi.org/10.1080/136918303 2000123431. Hungerbuehler, G., & Hungerbühler, G. (1972). Gemeinwesenarbeit und sozialer Wandel: Aktuelle Planungs- und Ausbildungsfragen; Bericht einer Studiengruppe. Freiburg im Breisgau: Lambertus-Verlag. Ife, J. (2013). Community development in an uncertain world. Melbourne: Cambridge University Press. Jackson, A., Blaxter, L., & Lewando-Hundt, G. (2003). Participating in medical education: Views of patients and carers living in deprived communities. Medical Education, 37(6), 532–538. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2923.2003.01535.x. Jalaludin, B., Maxwell, M., Saddik, B., Lobb, E., Byun, R., Gutierrez, R., & Paszek, J. (2012). Pre-and-post study of an urban renewal program in a socially disadvantaged neighbourhood in Sydney, Australia. BMC Public Health, 12, 521. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-12-521. Karrenberg, F. (1965). Katholische Soziallehre und evangelische Sozialethik. In H.  Achinger, L. Preller, & H. J. Wallraff (Eds.), Normen der Gesellschaft. Festgabe fuer Oswald von NellBreuning (pp. 49–71). Mannheim: Pesch-Haus Verlag. Kerr, K., Dyson, A., & Gallannaugh, F. (2016). Conceptualising school-community relations in disadvantaged neighbourhoods: Mapping the literature. Educational Research, 58(3), 265– 282. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131881.2016.1207872. Khan, M.  M. K., & Kraemer, A. (2008). Socio-economic factors explain differences in public health related variables among women in Bangladesh: A cross-sectional study. BMC Public Health, 8, 254. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-8-254. Kolling, M. (2019). Becoming favela: Forced resettlement and reverse transitions of urban space in Brazil. City & Society, 31(3), 413–435. https://doi.org/10.1111/ciso.12237. Lane, R. P. (1939). The field of community organization. In Proceedings of the national conference of social work, Buffalo. le Roux, S., & Hendrikz, F. (2006). Joint use libraries: Implementing a pilot community/school library project in a remote rural area in South Africa. Library Trends, 54(4), 618–637. https:// doi.org/10.1353/lib.2006.0039. Lee, C. (2005). Adab and Banarsipan: Embodying community among Muslim Artisans in Varanasi, India. Comparative Islamic Studies, 1(2), 177–196. https://doi.org/10.1558/cist.v1i2.839. Lee, Y., Gu, N., & An, S. (2016). Residents’ perception and use of green space: Results from a mixed method study in a deprived neighbourhood in Korea. Indoor and Built Environment, 26(6), 855–871. https://doi.org/10.1177/1420326X16661024. Leigh Sharman, R. (2004). The invention of fine art: Creating a cultural elite in a marginal community. Visual Anthropology, 17(3–4), 345–367. https://doi.org/10.1080/08949460490468180. Lindeman, M.  A., & Pedler, R.  P. (2008). Assessment of indigenous older peoples’ needs for home and community care in remote Central Australia. Journal of Cross-Cultural Gerontology, 23(1), 85–95. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10823-007-9053-3. Liu, Y., & He, S. (2017). Unpacking the heterogeneity of poor neighbourhoods and neighbouring in large Chinese cities. Area Development and Policy, 2(3), 294–313. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 23792949.2017.1341816. Lupton, R., & Fuller, C. (2009). Mixed communities: A new approach to spatially concentrated poverty in England. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 33(4), 1014–1028. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2427.2009.00904.x. Mackenbach, J. D., Lakerveld, J., van Lenthe, F. J., Bárdos, H., Glonti, K., Compernolle, S., De Bourdeaudhuij, I., Oppert, J. M., Roda, C., Rutter, H., Brug, J., & Nijpels, G. (2016). Exploring why residents of socioeconomically deprived neighbourhoods have less favourable percep-

3  Principles of Community Development and Challenges Facing Deprived Communities

87

tions of their neighbourhood environment than residents of wealthy neighbourhoods. Obesity Reviews, 17(Suppl 1), 42–52. https://doi.org/10.1111/obr.12375. Magole, I. (2009). Common pool resource management among San communities in Ngamiland, Botswana. Development Southern Africa, 26(4), 597–610. https://doi. org/10.1080/03768350903181381. Martsolf, D. S., Courey, T. J., Chapman, T. R., Draucker, C. B., & Mims, B. L. (2006). Adaptive sampling: Recruiting a diverse community sample of survivors of sexual violence. Journal of Community Health Nursing, 23(3), 169–182. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327655jchn2303_4. Marvin, S., & Laurie, N. (1999). An emerging logic of urban water management, Cochabamba, Bolivia. Urban Studies, 36(2), 341–357. https://doi.org/10.1080/0042098993637. Matthes, J. (1964). Gesellschaftspolitische Konzeptionen im Sozialhilferecht. Zur soziologischen Kritik der neuen deutschen Sozialhilfegesetzgebung. Stuttgart Enke: Soziologische Gegenwartsfragen. Miljenović, A. (2015). Konceptualizacija razvojno ugroženih zajednica u Hrvatskoj: eklektični pristup (Conceptualization of developmentally sensitive communities in Croatia: Eclectic approach). Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Zagreb, Faculty of Law, Zagreb. Miljenović, A., & Žganec, N. (2012). Disintegration and possibilities for rebuilding of war-affected communities: The Vojnić Municipality case. International Social Work, 55(5), 645–661. https:// doi.org/10.1177/0020872812447636. Mohan, G., Longo, A., & Kee, F. (2020). Post-conflict area-based regeneration policy in deprived urban neighbourhoods. Regional Studies, 54(6), 789–801. https://doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2 019.1644450. Moinat, S.  M., Raine, W.  J., Burbeck, S.  L., & Davison, K.  K. (1972). Black ghetto residents as rioters. Journal of Social Issues, 28(4), 45–62. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.1972. tb00045.x. Newman, A. (2011). Bridging the justice gap: Building community by responding to individual need. Clinical Law Review, 17, 615–630. O’Connor, A. (2008). Swimming against the tide. A brief history of federal policy in poor communities. In J. DeFilippis & S. Saegert (Eds.), The community development reader (pp. 9–28). New York: Routledge. Offer, S. (2010). Agency-based support: A “last-resort” strategy for low-income families? Social Science Quarterly, 91(1), 284–300. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6237.2010.00693.x. Omole, K. F. (2010). An assessment of housing condition and socio economic life styles of slum dwellers in Akure, Nigeria. Contemporary Management Research, 6(4), 273–290. https://doi. org/10.7903/cmr.2980. Owusu, G., Agyei-Mensah, S., & Lund, R. (2008). Slums of hope and slums of despair: Mobility and livelihoods in Nima, Accra. Norwegian Journal of Geography, 62(3), 180–190. https://doi. org/10.1080/00291950802335798. Punathil, S. (2016). From ethnic enclave to ghetto. Contributions to Indian Sociology, 50(2), 187– 213. https://doi.org/10.1177/0069966716637693. Reckmann, P. (1971). Soziale Aktion. Strategie und Methodik. Nuernberg: Stein. Reisch, M. (2005). Radical community organizing. In M. Weil (Ed.), The handbook of community practice (pp. 287–305). Thousand Oaks: Sage. Rey-Valette, H., Robert, S., & Rulleau, B. (2018). Resistance to relocation in flood-vulnerable coastal areas: A proposed composite index. Climate Policy, 19(2), 206–218. https://doi.org/10 .1080/14693062.2018.1482823. Riley, A., Hawkley, L. C., & Cagney, K. A. (2016). Racial differences in the effects of neighborhood disadvantage on residential mobility in later life. The Journals of Gerontology. Series B, Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 71(6), 1131–1140. https://doi.org/10.1093/ geronb/gbw064. Ross, M. (1955). Community organization – Theory and principles. New York: Harper & Row Publishers. Saguin, K. (2018). Why the poor do not benefit from community-driven development: Lessons from participatory budgeting. World Development, 112, 220–232. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. worlddev.2018.08.009.

88

N. Žganec and A. Opačić

Sharp, G. (2018). Eclipsing community? Neighborhood disadvantage, social mechanisms, and neighborly attitudes and behaviors. City & Community, 17(3), 615–635. https://doi. org/10.1111/cico.12327. Souza, R., Bernatsky, S., Reyes, R., & de Jong, K. (2007). Mental health status of vulnerable tsunami-affected communities: A survey in Aceh Province, Indonesia. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 20(3), 263–269. https://doi.org/10.1002/jts.20207. Specht, H. (1971). Disruptive Taktiken in der Gemeinwesenarbeit. In C.  W. Mueller & P. Nimmerman (Eds.), Stadtplanung und Gemeinwesenarbeit. Texte und Dokumente (pp. 208– 227). Muenchen: Juventa Verlag. Stagner, M., & Duran, M. (1997). Comprehensive community initiatives: Principles, practice, and lessons learned. The Future of Children, 7(2), 132–140. https://doi.org/10.2307/1602391. Sukowati, P., Sjamsuddin, S., Suryono, A., & Kausar. (2012). Disaster handling policy in order to community empowerment at disaster-vulnerable region of East Java Province. International Journal of Academic Research, 4(2), 33–37. Tonkens, E., & Verhoeven, I. (2018). The civic support paradox: Fighting unequal participation in deprived neighbourhoods. Urban Studies, 56(8), 1595–1610. https://doi. org/10.1177/0042098018761536. Van Eijk, G. (2010). Does living in a poor neighbourhood result in network poverty? A study on local networks, locality-based relationships and neighbourhood settings. Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, 25(4), 467–480. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10901-010-9198-1. Venter, C., Vokolkova, V., & Michalek, J. (2007). Gender, residential location, and household travel: Empirical findings from low-income urban settlements in Durban, South Africa. Transport Reviews, 27(6), 653–677. https://doi.org/10.1080/01441640701450627. Vincent, J. W., II. (2009). Community development practice in. In R. Phillips & R. H. Pittman (Eds.), An introduction to community development (pp. 58–73). London/New York: Routledge. Walton, E. (2016). “It’s not just a bunch of buildings”: Social psychological investment, sense of community, and collective efficacy in a multiethnic low-income neighborhood. City & Community, 15(3), 231–263. https://doi.org/10.1111/cico.12189. Ward, P., & Coates, A. (2006). ‘We shed tears, but there is no one there to wipe them up for us’: Narratives of (mis)trust in a materially deprived community. An Interdisciplinary Journal for the Social Study of Health, Illness and Medicine, 10(3), 283–301. https://doi. org/10.1177/1363459306064481. Warner, C. (2016). The effect of incarceration on residential mobility between poor and nonpoor neighborhoods. City & Community, 15(4), 423–443. https://doi.org/10.1111/cico.12207. Westaway, M. S. (2009). Aspects of environmental quality of life that affect neighbourhood satisfaction in disadvantaged and advantaged Johannesburg communities. Development Southern Africa, 26(3), 447–458. https://doi.org/10.1080/03768350903086820. Williams, C. C. (2005). Cultivating community self-help in deprived urban neighborhoods. City & Community, 4(2), 171–188. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6040.2005.00110.x. Žganec, N., & Opačić, A. (2018). Ecological hazards of nuclear waste disposal: Tensions between aspiration and economic prosperity and community sustainability: Lessons for social work in a small Croatian municipality. In L. Dominelli (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of green social work (pp. 385–396). New York: Routledge.

Part II

Social Work Practices in Deprived Communities Throughout the World

Chapter 4

Listening to the Least: Engaging Communities in Development Programs in India Baiju P. Vareed

4.1  Introduction India is a diverse country with a huge population. It reflects diversity in its beliefs, culture, languages, food styles and lifestyles. Though diversity and plurality define the country, they also represent a challenge in addressing social and economic development of the people. Three centuries of colonization have left the country in a state of economic, cultural and political impoverishment. India is home to 1.36 billion people with 21.2% living below the poverty line and earning less than USD 1.90 a day (The World Bank 2019). The report from the National Sample Survey Organization of the Government of India estimates that 21.9% of people in the country are poor in the 2011–2012 period – 25.7% in rural areas and 13.7% in urban areas (Government of India 2018). However, another independent analysis notes that the actual poverty rate in the county is even higher than government estimates. In 2019, there were 313 million illiterate people in the country, of which 59% are women (Chandra 2019). The UNDP ( 2019) ranks India 129th in terms of the Human Development Index and 135th in terms of the Gender Inequality Index (United Nations Development Program 2019). Though 68.84% of Indians live in rural areas, and the remainder or 31.16% in urban areas, 17.4% of all urban people live in slums (Census of India 2011). Rural areas are inhabited by marginalized farmers who cultivate their own small lands for sustenance or work on other farms for daily wages. The caste system,1 dividing people as superior and inferior,  In the deep-rooted caste system in India, the upper caste treats the lower caste as the ‘untouchables’. If a lower-caste person appears in front of an upper-caste person, the lower-caste person receives punishment from the upper caste. Even though the law abolished untouchability in 1955, caste-based discrimination is still prevalent in society. 1

B. P. Vareed (*) School of Social Work, MacEwan University, Edmonton, AB, Canada e-mail: [email protected]

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 A. Opačić (ed.), Practicing Social Work in Deprived Communities, European Social Work Education and Practice, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-65987-5_4

91

92

B. P. Vareed

c­ ontinues to deprive people of resources and social and economic opportunities. People are massively migrating from rural areas to urban areas in search of jobs. This coping strategy is a means of overcoming acute unemployment and income instability. Studies have found that people belonging to remote rural areas, i.e. the chronically poor, landless and those with low educational attainments, are more likely to migrate seasonally or on a temporary basis (Abdul Jaleel and Chattopadhay 2019). They constitute the working class living in squalid housing facilities and violent and unhealthy environments, with limited access to employment opportunities and income, little or no social protection mechanisms and limited access to adequate health and education opportunities (Singh and Fatima 2017). These and other facts portray the deprivation people face due to poverty and caste-based discrimination, as well as gender, sanitation and education disadvantages. However, in the last century and especially after the country became independent in 1947, India has achieved tremendous progress in reducing poverty, increasing literacy rates, promoting gender equity and ensuring sanitation and other forms of social development. This progress stems from concerted efforts by the government along with the selfless work of voluntary organizations and village-level community workers. Mahatma Gandhi, the father of the nation, who through nonviolence and satyagraha led the millions towards the country’s independence, placed focus on community work during the independence movement. He proposed constructive programs for community development with 18 key areas, such as communal unity, removal of untouchability, prohibition, village industries, sanitation, basic and adult education and highlighting the work of farmers, the Adivasis (indigenous people) and students (Gandhi 1945). These key areas of community work were based on the social and economic circumstances of the Indian society in the early and mid-­ twentieth century. Having proposed these measures even decades ago, the challenges facing Indian society still remain similar to the situation back then. This prelude highlights the diversity of the communities and the problems they face. Mutual help and voluntary service have always been part of Indian culture. The deeply religious mindset of the community believes in doing good to other people and contributing to community development. Grassroots community organizations follow a charity approach in helping the needy. Village-level workers are not specifically trained to be social workers. Though social work training began in India in 1936 and flourished towards the last decades of the twentieth century, the focus of trained social workers remained on clinical and management work.2 Community development projects were first began in 1948 with the launch of an experimental community development program in Etawah, a small village in North India (Hegde 2001). By the 1980s, the focus of community development activities was housing, livelihood programs and support for marginal farming across all regions of the country. Development blocks still function as a formal channel of the government  Social work is not a registered profession in India. Social work education has been criticized in the country for following Western methods and not accurately addressing the country’s specific issues. India needs a community-based social work educational program that addresses the problems associated with poverty. 2

4  Listening to the Least: Engaging Communities in Development Programs in India

93

for community development in the country. Their roles and status have changed with the introduction of the Panchayati Raj system, which the 73rd amendment of the Indian Constitution introduced. The central and state governments work through various ministries and programs to lift people from poverty and provide them a decent life through education, technological advancement, habitation and health facilities. The vast number of non-­ governmental organizations (NGOs), based on a voluntary motive of human development, have spearheaded social, economic and political changes among deprived communities in all regions of the country. These NGOs have been based on Gandhian ideals of community work and religious spirit for the purpose of helping others or on account of sheer philanthropic value. Though the Government follows a mainly bureaucratic approach to community work, NGOs utilize dynamic strategies and methods. NGOs work among the vulnerable and deprived sections of communities which include women, child labourers, marginal farmers, people with disabilities, people living in slums, homeless and mentally ill people. NGOs and the Indian Government serve in various settings including housing, health promotion, assistance for education of children, empowerment of women, livelihood activities, agriculture, water supply and sanitation. Community agencies and the governmental departments work in collaboration with elected representatives from local self-­ governments, community leaders, local communities and religious organizations, financial institutions, government officials, political groups and beneficiaries of the program. This chapter discusses how stakeholders, especially the immediate community, are engaged in development activities implemented by the Indian Government and voluntary agencies.

4.2  Participatory Development Academicians and community workers define the concept of participation in different ways. The right to participation comes from a general acceptance of development where people have the right to participate in decisions affecting their well-being (Littrell 1971). In early discussions of participation, Cohen and Uphoff (1980) stated that participation includes people’s involvement in decision-making, in the implementation of programs, sharing benefits and evaluating them. According to Bhose (2003), participation is a process where people get involved in planning, decision-making, implementing projects, movements and the like for the betterment with or without external support. People can sustain these changes as individuals, in people organizations or through social institutions. Participation should be treated as a voluntary process where disadvantaged people influence or control the decisions that affect their lives. Ananda (2009) suggests that participation involves policymaking, though non-binding involvement by contributing in public consultation. Participation in community development implies active and informed involvement of all stakeholders, mostly those members of the benefitting community, in planning, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of policies and programs for

94

B. P. Vareed

their well-being. Community work focuses on people deprived of their rights due to factors including gender, location, class, caste, faith, education and poor governance. The participation of beneficiary communities explicitly means the inclusion of deprived people in the development process. While this definition buys into a pragmatic approach of participation, in a broader and deeper analysis, participation extends to accessing resources, formulating policies, engaging in civic administration, ascertaining human rights and strengthening democratic institutions. This chapter captures all the nuances given to interpretations of participation and follows a pragmatic definition for discussion purposes. While people participation remains the key, development sector uses several other terms to denote these aspects. They include participatory development, civic participation, community engagement, construction (of community) and citizen participation. As the essence of all these terms centres around participation, here participation will be used in this discussion so as not to exclude the meanings implied by any of the above-mentioned terms. In the 1970s, participation became the subject of elaborate research and discussion among development scholars (Arora and Ahmed 1990). Literature on community development, globally and in India, has been rich with instances of participation and community engagement since the 1980s (Chambers 1983; Cohen and Uphoff 1977; Lahiri-Dutt and Samanta 2006; Voth and Brewster 1989). Participation was acknowledged as a transformative concept in community development in the early 1970s, mostly in the works of Paulo Freire (Ledwith and Springett 2010). Freire propounded a pedagogy that worked in equal partnership with people in community, applying popular education that liberates them from oppression (Freire 1972). Along those lines, several independent community actions in different parts of the world positioned community engagement as a topic of integral practice in community development. The Gandhian principles of self-reliant villages and small-scale development were an initial format of community-based development (Mansuri and Rao 2004). Community participation has been identified as an integral component of sustainable development, and hence current environmental policies and programs recognize the participation and active involvement of communities in planning and implementing programs as well as in developing policies (Ananda 2009). The NGOs initiated participatory development in India in the late 1970s, following the international attention given to it and as suggested by donor agencies (Baiju 2015). Subsequently, various government programs embraced various participatory approaches. This chapter now discusses integration of the participatory development at various levels of the Indian Government and also by NGOs. Case Study 1: A Village Leader Changes the Fate of His Village Piplantri Gram Panchayat, in the Rajsamand District of Rajasthan State in India, has 1100 households. The hilly terrain and land degradation due to unregulated grazing and the timber industry transformed the place into a dry area. Reportedly, only two wells near a valley remained at full capacity, and women have to trudge the distance and carry the water back uphill. There

4  Listening to the Least: Engaging Communities in Development Programs in India

were only two schools in the village, and children had to reach another school 15 kilometres away for grades above ten. The dropout rates in these schools were high, and after eighth grade most of the girls in the village stayed home and did not attend school. Only a few households had individual sanitary facilities and adequate water. Most of the jobs were from nearby mining quarries. The changes seen in the village are a piped water supply to individual households, paved and relatively wider roads, electricity supply and street lighting. There are 2 high schools providing education up to grade 12 and 11 schools that provide education up to grade 8. Children, especially girls, opt to drop out of school in rural areas, whereas Piplantri has almost no dropouts, and girls attend school to at least grade 12. There are nine anganwadis (preschools). The number of well-maintained common sanitary facilities, dustbins with regular waste collection and household-level soak pits with a kitchen garden help to keep the village environment hygienic and have been awarded the highest honour from the federal government for a clean environment. Irrigation has revived agriculture in the region. Civic administration has been reorganized with more people participating in Gram Sabhas. The transformation began with the election of Mr. Shyam Paliwal as sarpanch or village head in the state-level elections for local self-governments in 2005. He started the spree of community development by upgrading the existing school to grade 12, utilizing government funds as well as contributions from villagers. Use of the Total Sanitation Campaign funds which the Indian Government provided enabled the village-initiated construction of toilet facilities in households and public places. This was done simultaneously with hygiene training which the UNICEF funded. To address the pressing issue of reduced levels of ground water, projects were initiated, such as water harvesting through check dams on stream beds, rooftop rainwater collection in schools and land treatment for water retention, all based on collective decision-­making and pooling resources from different government programs as well as voluntary contributions from community members. Tree plantation was encouraged, with 1,500,000 trees planted in 5 years. All of these efforts resulted in wells at full water capacity and plenty of water for irrigation purposes. Utilizing the government fund enabled the village to pipe water to every household. Street lighting was also installed along village roads. The central features of Piplantri’s transformation was the high drive of the village sarpanch, systematic and full use of available government programs and creative and additional sourcing of social responsibility funds from corporations. People participation in decision-making and developmental efforts through extensive meetings with communities, the mobilization of resources from the community and an open decision-making process as well as execution and monitoring of programs by community-level committees are definitely other aspects crucial to the success of the sarpanch. (The case study is a shortened version from IIT Delhi (2018), used with permission.)

95

96

B. P. Vareed

4.3  The Panchayati Raj System Community development work in India is carried out at the various levels of central and state governments through governmental ministries and agencies in the form of various development programs. Development blocks, the foundational institution that catalysed community development, were launched in 1952. However, the Panchayati Raj Act introduced in 1993 brought a sea change to community development in the country. The Act instituted governance in the form of a three-tier system of local self-government: Gram Panchayat at the village level, Block Samiti of the Panchayat Samiti at the block level covering five to seven Gram Panchayats and Zila Parishad at the district level, covering all Panchayats in the district. These councils are governed by representatives who the people elect every 5 years, with the funds collected from the respective jurisdictional areas and those shared by the Government including various central and state programs. The panchayats are responsible for the development, maintenance and running of facilities that serve the community, including schools, hospitals, agriculture and local industries. The Gram Panchayat system propounded in the country is based on the concept of a self-reliant village, which Gandhiji called Gram Swaraj. Gandhiji shared his idea of the village swaraj as a complete republic, independent of its neighbours for its own vital wants, and yet interdependent with many others in which dependence is a necessity (Gandhi 1945). Gandhiji emphasized the need for sanitation, education, cottage industries and annihilation of discriminatory practices like untouchability and alcoholism. But when Gandhiji dreamed of the Gram (village) swaraj (self-reliance), India was not an independent country. After the country gained independence in 1947, it took decades to bring together the country as a nation by consolidating princely states, forming states on the basis of languages, addressing the needs of agricultural and industrial development and also combating challenging social and economic situations like untouchability, illiteracy and unemployment. Various types of community-based local self-governments existed in different states in the county, and these were streamlined into a single structure throughout the county based on the Panchayati Raj Act. The needs of the community have changed since the times of Gandhiji, even though the main problems in rural areas remain poverty, caste-based discrimination and gender-based inequality. The Panchayati Raj system reserves seats for women, ensuring fair representation of women in the councils and providing representatives from communities that have historically been deprived, classified as scheduled castes and scheduled tribes (scheduled castes are the lowest strata in the caste system that exist in the country, and scheduled tribes are indigenous communities). The headship of various councils rotates for women and representatives from backward communities and is based on the population of backward communities in a particular panchayat area. These measures have contributed to significantly challenging patriarchal gender roles and political leadership of women and deprived communities. The main deliberative bodies of the Panchayati Raj are the Gram Sabhas, made up of all voters living in a division or ward of a Gram Panchayat. The Gram Sabhas

4  Listening to the Least: Engaging Communities in Development Programs in India

97

meets at least twice every year, collectively reviewing community plans, choosing beneficiaries for various programs and setting priorities for local development. The Panchayati Raj system introduced in the country uses participatory decentralized planning for local development (Harilal 2008). Some states like Kerala vigorously followed decentralized planning for community development programs; other states implement decentralized planning at different levels. The government does not employ professional social workers at any levels of community development programs.3 However, employees working in Panchayat offices and government programs get training in various government programs that include technical details, beneficiary selection, fund management and leadership skills. There are grassroots-­ level community workers called Gramsevak or village workers, who work closely with communities. A discussion on working with deprived communities in India invariably needs to include schemes and programs implemented by the central and state governments for community development, as they too are catalysts in reducing poverty, women empowerment, technological advancement and social harmony in communities. Important players in implementing the Panchayati Raj system are government-appointed staff at different levels and offices in the Panchayati Raj system including representatives elected every 5 years. The Panchayati Raj system does not appoint any (professional) social workers at any levels of its process. This fact should be understood in the circumstances where social work is still not a registered profession and has yet to acquire specified roles, mandates and legal status. However, people who have received a social work education are recruited to different positions in Panchayati Raj system, such as a secretary of a Gram Panchayat or village extension worker, as well as to specific programs implemented through panchayats like the National Rural Health Mission that provides health services to deprived communities in association with the Panchayats and the National Rural Livelihood Mission that focuses on promoting livelihood programs for deprived communities. The Panchayati Raj and Nagarapalika systems have helped in decentralizing democratic governance, political empowerment, ushering in gender equity and sharing power with local self-governments. Decentralized planning facilitates the participatory planning of development schemes, informed selection of beneficiaries, participatory monitoring and evaluation of projects. Poor and deprived people have finally got a say in the planning and implementation of local development programs. A homeless person can express his or her need for a house in a Gram Sabha, the grassroots-level body in decision-making. The same community gathers to decide and prioritize who should get assistance for building a home, if a large number of applicants exist compared to available resources. The local panchayat council collects revenue from their area of their jurisdiction and receives funding from the state government. They decide as to what improvements should be made in the local community. The Gram Panchayats invest in maintaining elementary schools, while

 There are only few positions in public service that requires an education in social work. Many people qualified as social workers join various government services including community work. 3

98

B. P. Vareed

the Panchayat Samiti looks after high schools. So just as the Gram Panchayat is responsible for medical service and supply of medicines in local community hospital, the larger hospitals with more beds fall under the responsibility of the Panchayat Samiti, while the larger district-level hospitals with specialized treatment are managed by Zila Parishad. There is also a difference in allocated roles in different states. These kinds of facilities are large resources accessed by people who are not able to pay for similar services in the private sector. The primary institutions providing services in health, education, community services, local development, sanitation and infrastructure are managed by representatives chosen directly by people. However, this discussion does not undermine nepotism, corruption, technical issues and other limitations faced at different levels of implementation. As Harilal (2008) points out, participatory decentralized planning is not a solution for social and economic problems. Even in a state like Kerala that boasts achievements in stakeholder participation, decentralized planning has failed to include tribal (indigenous) communities in the development process (Thomas and Narayanan 2015). The conservative ideology of national and state governments has shifted from involving communities in decision-making to following top-down approaches in local development. Given that institutionalization discards the soul of any new idea, mandatory guidelines by the government for participation have transformed it more into an administrative procedure than a process of local community development.

Case Study 2: Engaging the Community in Slum Redevelopment This case study presents experiences from community engagement from an urban housing project in the slums of two cities in India. In 2009, the Ministry of Housing and Urban Poverty Alleviation launched the Rajiv Awas Yojana (RAY) scheme for the purpose of creating a slum-free India. The scheme introduced public participation and cost sharing between the central government (50%), state and urban local bodies (ULB) (38%) with a minimum of 12% for beneficiaries upgrading slum-housing and infrastructure. The RAY scheme advocated making services and amenities available to those who have been deprived of their rights and creating legal title on city spaces and designing their own houses. Under the scheme, every identified slum developed a detailed project report (DPR) incorporating feedback from slum dwellers and other key stakeholders. This case study by two workers in implementing the project in two cities acknowledges the dynamics of participatory consultation and decision-making. Raipur, the capital of Chhattisgarh State, covers a total area of 143 square kilometres and has a population of 1.01 million people. Gangtok is the capital of the state of Sikkim, with a total population of 0.1 million people and spread across 19.62 square kilometres. The scheme successfully engaged the community in preparing the DPR, designing the houses and executing the project through six key steps in participatory decision-making process which included:

4  Listening to the Least: Engaging Communities in Development Programs in India

99

1. The hosting of a process ignition workshop, gathering slum-dwellers, city councillors and officials from ULBs and the state department, in which the RAY was introduced. A community mapping exercise was undertaken using picture cards, to understand the way the people will view their settlement. Community representatives were selected in Raipur for the purpose of raising awareness about RAY and animating street-meetings. 2. Participatory poverty mapping was conducted (in a particular slum) using household items such as wheat flour, pulses and tree leaves that highlighted houses, ponds, temples, etc. The participants brainstormed poverty indicators in their settlement and identified the houses they thought were most disadvantaged. 3. Further discussions were undertaken through street-level meetings to identify the causes of problems and respective solutions facing the community. In both cities, participants identified issues affecting them and then prioritized them. 4. As mandated under RAY, a socioeconomic survey of all the slum-­ households was conducted in the local language, by enumerators selected from the community, which helped in building rapport with the community. Each surveyed household was linked to a GIS-based map of the settlement, and survey data was publicly displayed. 5. Options for housing and infrastructure development were finalized with assistance from technical experts and shared with the community in an accessible language. 6. Community participation was also extended to cover the implementation and monitoring of civil works sanctioned under the DPR. In one particular slum, the community preferred to build their houses themselves, while in other slums, the ward committee supervised timely completion of milestone works on the houses built by contractors. However, this engaged process posed unique challenges. People were sceptical of RAY’s commitment to full community participation in planning, given that historically they had been involved in designing with the exclusion of the community. They feared ‘token participation’ where hypothetically end products would bear their signatures but largely reflect government involvement. However, discussions of options for developing housing and infrastructure based on community priorities in community meetings resulted in bringing them into the process. One of the most important lessons from this project is that ultimately, slum-dwellers are able to suggest simple solutions to complex problems. Small street-corner meetings yielded splendid results with a range of important issues given space for discussion. The community’s knowledge and opinions on development models were formed in line with experience and may not have always aligned with the priorities of policymakers. Programs should inculcate patience and a zeal for ongoing community dialogue to ensure that aspirations are understood and respected in the planning process, thus effectively engaging the respective communities. (Adapted from Gurung and Bhattacharya (2015), used with permission.)

100

B. P. Vareed

4.4  Participatory Development by NGOs The other major player working with deprived communities is the non-government organizations, popularly known as voluntary organizations (nonprofit agencies in the West). India has a long history of voluntary organizations and voluntary actions. The independence movement led by Mahatma Gandhi focused on working in grassroots communities by eradicating social evils of untouchability as well as social development and economic upliftment. Many community leaders follow Gandhi’s ideals and continue to propagate his mission through the work of voluntary organizations. Another major category of voluntary organizations belongs to those started by religious communities based on principles of charity as propounded in their religious teachings. The country has several organizations started by philanthropists with the purpose of serving local communities or a section of deprived people, such as people with disabilities, or empowerment of rural women. NGOs are generally registered as trusts or charitable societies under the legislations of each state. There have been several social service organizations started by corporate houses in the last two decades focusing on target populations. NGOs appoint community-level workers for frontline services and people with an education in social work on the frontline as well as at managerial levels. In the first few decades after independence, voluntary organizations were most often based on concept of charity. Most social workers start their professional careers in NGOs. NGOs began to take up social justice issues during the 1980s and came to the fore of the public in the 1990s (Patrick 2010). NGOs have advanced their professional approaches, scientific methods and secular worldviews over the last three decades. Voluntary organizations have worked effectively in the corners of India where other government entities have not been about to reach. While voluntary organizations mobilized funds from local community, religious institutions and wealthy people in earlier times, international donor agencies began to support NGOs in the second half of the last century. Along with international funding came strategies and methods in community development which have successfully passed experimentation in other parts of the world. The central and state governments began to partner with NGOs in delivering community services in the 1980s, confirming the importance of third sector in the country. India moved to a liberal and open economy in 1990 and has seen sporadic growth in corporate sector since then. As a result, several corporate social responsibility projects have been implemented in partnership with NGOs. NGOs work among people at the bottom of the social scale and reach communities where governments are not able to effectively reach (Baiju 2015; Bhose 2003). The main group of focus by the NGO sector are marginal farmers, women, children, tribal communities and other socially and economically backward communities. NGO activities are numerous and include non-formal and supplementary education, innovations and financial support for farming, livelihood promotion, micro entrepreneurship, vocational and skill trainings, promotion of saving schemes, women empowerment activities, life skill learning, housing, sanitation, drinking water supply, psychosocial counselling and recreational programs. There are several NGOs involved in environmental conservation, promotion of technology, rights of sexual

4  Listening to the Least: Engaging Communities in Development Programs in India

101

minorities, abolition of bonded labour, legal aid, innovations in education and governance. There are nonprofit organizations focusing on research, publication, media advocacy, campaigns, networking and liaising with government. This third sector occupies a significant position in the development of communities situated lower on the social scale in India. Government-initiated projects followed a top-down approach where so-called experts within governmental departments plan schemes without much consultation with communities whose problems the programs endeavour to address (Pieterse 2001; Tesoriero 2006). Efforts to involve communities, beneficiaries and stakeholders through various established methodologies are being introduced into various community development projects in India. However, it has been non-governmental organizations that have spearheaded these changes, followed by government projects. International donor agencies, including various UN agencies support many NGOs working at community level with funding, training for staff and introduction of scientific methodologies for undertaking work.4 The introduction of Rapid Rural Appraisal (RRA) followed by Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA) was the first organized form of participatory development in the country. Robert Chambers who theorized PRA developed methodologies and wrote extensively about it, conducting workshops for community workers and NGO staff in the country. He applied PRA in communities with NGO staff and developed new methodologies based on obtained experience. PRA entered various realms of community work and further evolved into Participatory Monitoring and Evaluation (PME), Participatory Forest Management (PFM), Participatory Learning and Action (PLA), Partnership in Sexual Health (PSH), Participatory Technology Development (PTD), Participatory Resource Management (PRM) and Participatory Resource Mapping (PRM) (Baiju 2015). These different models formalized stakeholder participation, especially of beneficiaries in the community development programs. Non-government organizations began applying rural appraisal methods in the 1980s. PRA provided a structured format for participatory development used in planning, implementation, monitoring and evaluation phases of community development projects. Tools like wealth ranking, resource mapping, matrix ranking, Venn diagram, focus group discussions and key informant interviews helped assess needs, identify resources and plan development along with the local community. Mapping, the Venn diagram, cobweb analysis and other tools are used for monitoring and evaluating the progress of community development programs. The tools provided by PRA help to distribute power centred on community workers, delegating it to the community by applying knowledge and learning styles. These tools replaced conventional tools like surveys where community members were the subjects and the social work agency decided the ultimate format and content. Community engagement tools share power with the community in choosing the methods of study, facilitate the actual process and critically analyse findings. The process of engaging the community as such is an empowering process.  Even the highly acclaimed Etawah Project that started the community development projects in India was funded by the Ford Foundation. 4

102

B. P. Vareed

Case Study 3: Participatory Approaches Lead to Community Ownership of Livelihood Schemes in an Indigenous Community The Aralam Tribal Resettlement area within the Kannur District of Kerala State in South India is inhabited by 1096 tribal families. Most of them belong to the tribal community named ‘Paniya’ who are considered to be the least developed tribal community in the state. They live on land freely allocated by the state government but lack means for a proper livelihood. The National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development (NABARD, www.nabard.org) based on their mandate for tribal community development sanctioned a livelihood promotion project for the community. The Centre for Research and Development (CRD, www.crdksgd.org), a local nonprofit organization, is the implementing agency which started working in the community in early July of 2016. The community had identified several projects for development, though most of them failed to provide the desired results. It comes as no wonder that the community shunned community workers involved in these development projects. The agency adopted a community participatory bottom-up approach. The team from CRD made an initial entry through the Oorumoopans (Tribal Community Chieftains), who agreed to convene a number of community meetings. The workers camped in the area, visited every household and listened to community members. The community came together for a participatory analysis of their livelihood situation using various tools from the Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA) and were assisted by community workers in the task. This led to developing an action plan for their livelihood, where importance was placed on activities for which the community had traditionally possessed specific skills. The entire plan was devised with participation from the people and the Gram Sabha, whereupon the local community assembly provided its feedback and final assent. The community was mobilized through self-help groups (SHG) consisting of 15–20 families, who collected savings and mobilized the necessary capital for their ventures from banks, in addition to financial assistance from NABARD. The result is that community members now have individual and group projects including agriculture, animal husbandry, small trades and technical ventures, which generate good earnings and a decent livelihood. All beneficiaries for livelihood and group-based lease farming activities were selected through the SHGs. Local leadership and management skills were strengthened through capacity development workshops and visits to other similar projects. To maintain transparency and accountability, the implementing agency publicly displayed technical and financial details of the project, in terms of physical and financial targets for every family. One example of using community resources and skills was developing a community nursery that raised seedlings and organic manure for all agricultural activities instead of buying seedlings from the open market. Community involvement was ensured through the sharing of labour and materials for every venture. The community

4  Listening to the Least: Engaging Communities in Development Programs in India

103

is in the process of setting up a farming company, with shares from community members for input supply, processing, value adding and marketing their own products. The partnership between the government agency (NABARD), implementing agency and local community became successful in improving people’s livelihood. Some important points leading to success are unconditionally listening to the community, empowering the community as decision-makers, focusing on traditional practices for their livelihood and the provision of material benefits to the community. (The case study was developed by the Centre for Research and Development (CRD, www.crdksgd.org) and used with their permission.)

4.5  Challenges of Participation Even the World Bank, which has proposed community-based (participatory) programs to reduce poverty and has invested billions of dollars – including in India – has raised concerns as to the effectiveness of community-driven approaches. A study by Mansuri and Rao (2004) found that the World Bank’s portfolio alone has approximately $7 billion for community-based and community-driven development projects (p.1). But they argue that ‘evidence suggests that decentralized targeting has not always been effective, especially in targeting projects to the poor within communities’ (p. 29). They found that decentralized projects are dominated by local elites and fail to address the heterogeneity of communities, thereby not targeting the right beneficiaries. Another criticism they raised is that uncritical use of the term community used in most of these community-driven projects often obscures local structures of social and economic powers; and community is defined an endogenous construct determined by the parameters of a project. They also found from studies that communities with poor organization and less social capital are less likely to get access to community-driven projects and sometimes end up poorly mismanaging the projects given to them. Engaging communities is not easy but always challenging, as service providers need to share their power with the community and seek its involvement in decision-­ making. There has always been criticism that, in reality, little is done to ensure citizen participation in community development, though much lip service is given. Community development has been done to communities, rather than doing with them, which makes people dependent on service providers (Garkovich 1989). Government systems are vulnerable to corruption, bureaucratic procedures and systemic inefficiencies. The nonprofit sector often suffers from a lack of funds, technological update, infrastructure facilities, competent staff and vested interests of community leaders. Leadership in local communities, although they come up with the idea of serving communities, is often inclined to fulfil the interests of political

104

B. P. Vareed

parties and religious groups they represent. Voluntary agencies are forced to follow directions from local leaders rather than the plans of agencies. Local elections in the Panchayati Raj institutions are contested by candidates from political parties, and the political party that wins the majority of seats gets to rule local government. Local governance is influenced by the interests of political parties in power and individual interests of members. There have been checks and balances in the government and voluntary agencies in order to overcome the challenges of community development and respective work. Despite the challenges and limitations, Panchayati Raj institutions and voluntary organizations are thriving by engaging with communities in their development. There are several case studies on local self-government under the leadership of local village leaders who have transformed their communities into prosperous places. The case studies detailed by the Indian Institute of Technology Delhi (IIT Delhi 2018) include Ralegan Siddhi (Maharashtra), Piplantri (Rajasthan), Ramachandrapuram (Andhra Pradesh), Gangadevipalli (Andhra Pradesh) and Hiware Bazar (Maharashtra). Some key factors contributing to this success have been strong leadership of democratically elected village heads, utilization of natural and community resources, effective use of various government schemes, use of corporate social responsibility funds and ensuring participation of the local community.

4.6  Conclusion Given that social work is not a regulated profession in India, it continues to not be a requisite for many positions that require social work skills. Nonprofit agencies and government programs working with communities employ workers who receive on-­ the-­spot training to work with communities. Nonprofit agencies embrace advanced practice methods for working with communities and develop innovative strategies for community practice. Local self-governments and various government programs also adopt inclusive development and devise strategies for engaging communities in development. Technological advances and social media play an important role in communicating communities, and community agencies often use social media and devices in their community work. Effective use of technology nestled with advanced methods of development open up new horizons of community work in India. National governments enforce laws that curtail the rights of people, especially among deprived communities and minorities. Community work demands a refocus on enhancing the rights of people including their livelihood, housing, education, entitlements, right of expression, diversity in beliefs and practices. Such work involves transparency and accountability from the government as well as government trust in people. One way to strengthen participatory community work is to examine the theoretical framework, methodologies, language, strategies and tools for engaging with communities. They should be capable of defining a real community with a deeper understanding of power structures and cultural intricacies and ensuring the involvement of deprived member from communities. The

4  Listening to the Least: Engaging Communities in Development Programs in India

105

competencies of social workers and community workers are important in understanding communities, analysing power structures and effectively engaging with communities. The paradigm shift in community work is that social workers learn and work with communities than applying expert knowledge and work for the community.

References Abdul Jaleel C. P., & Chattopadhay A. (2019). Seasonal migration in Beed District of Maharashtra. Livelihood crisis and distress. Economic & Political Weekly, 54(1), 30–35. https://www.epw. in/journal/2019/41/insight/livelihood-­crisis-­and-­distress.html Accessed 15 Feb 2020. Ananda, J. (2009). Community participation in formulating sustainable forest policy: An institutional perspective. In M. F. Hindsworth & T. B. Lang (Eds.), Community participation and empowerment. New York: Nova Science Publishers. Arora, R.  K., & Ahmed, A. (1990). The dynamic so development from participatory to people centered approach. In R. Pinto & R. Srinivasa (Eds.), Development administration. New Delhi: Himalaya publishers. Baiju, P. V. (2015). NGOS and participatory development in India. New Delhi: Concept Publishing Company. Bhose, J. (2003). NGOs and rural development: Theory and practice. New Delhi: Concept Publishing Company. Census of India. (2011). Registrar general and census commissioner, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India. New Delhi. http://censusindia.gov.in/2011-­prov-­results/paper2/data_ files/india/Rural_Urban_2011.pdf Accessed 7 Jan 2019. Chambers, R. (1983). Rural development: Putting the last first. Harlow: Prentice Hall. Chandra, T. (2019, October). Literacy in India: The gender and age dimension (ORF Issue Brief, No. 322). Observer Research Foundation. https://www.orfonline.org/research/literacy-­in-­ india-­the-­gender-­and-­age-­dimension-­57150/. Accessed 7 June 2020. Cohen, J. M., & Uphoff, N. (1977). Rural development participation: Concepts and measures for project design, implementation and evaluation (Monograph no.2). Ithaca: Cornell University Center for International Studies, Rural Development Committee. Cohen, J.  M., & Uphoff, N.  T. (1980). Participation’s place in rural development: Seeking clarity through specificity. World Development, 8(3), 213–235. https://doi. org/10.1016/0305-­750X(80)90011-­X. Freire, P. (1972). Pedagogy of the oppressed. Harmondsworth: Penguin. Gandhi, M.  K. (1945). Constructive Programme: Its meaning and place. Ahmedabad: Navajivan Press. Garkovich, L.  E. (1989). Local organizations and leadership in community development. In J.  A. Christension & J.  W. Robinson (Eds.), Community development in perspective (pp. 196–218). Iowa: Iowa State University Press. Government of India. (2018). India in figures. Ministry of Statistics and Program Implementation. http://mospi.nic.in/sites/default/files/publication_reports/India_in_figures-­2018_rev.pdf. Accessed 7 June 2020. Gurung, R., & Bhattacharya, T. (2015). Engaging community in slum redevelopment in Raipur and Gangtok, India. Universitas Forum, 4(2). http://www.universitasforum.org/index.php/ojs/ article/view/162/613 Accessed 7 Jan 2020. Harilal, K. N. (2008). Redesigning local governance in India: Lessons from the Kerala experiment. In F. Saito (Ed.), Foundations for local governance. Decentralization in comparative perspective (pp. 75–92). Heidelberg: Physica-Verlag. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-­3-­7908-­2006-­5_4.

106

B. P. Vareed

Hegde, N. H. (2001). Community development in India: An overview. Indian Association of Social Science Institutions Quarterly, 20(1), 55–67. IIT Delhi. (2018). Learning from some of the available guidelines and successful case studies in Rural Development. UBA Cell, IIT Delhi. http://unnat.iitd.ac.in/app/webroot/files/general-­ documents/Guidelines%20and%20Case%20Studies%20for%20Integrated%20Village%20 Development%20Planning.pdf. Accessed 7 Jan 2020. Lahiri-Dutt, K., & Samanta, G. (2006). Constructing social capital: Self-help groups and rural women’s development in India. Geographical Research, 44(3), 285–295. https://doi. org/10.1111/j.1745-­5871.2006.00390.x. Ledwith, M., & Springett, J. (2010). Participatory practice community based action for transformative change. Bristol: The Policy Press. Littrell, D.  W. (1971). Theory and practice of community development (MP 184). Colombia: University of Missouri Extension Division Publication. Mansuri, G., & Rao, V. (2004). Community-based and -driven development: A critical review. The World Bank Research Observer, 19(1), 1–39. https://doi.org/10.1093/wbro/lkh012 Accessed 2 Nov 2020. Patrick, K. (2010). NGOs in India: The challenges of women’s empowerment and accountability. London: Routledge. Pieterse, J. N. (2001). Development theory: Deconstructions/reconstructions. New Delhi: Sage. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446279083. Singh, A. K., & Fatima, S. (2017). Economic implications of urbanization on urban poverty in India. International Journal of Research in Economics and Social Sciences, 7(8), 366–377. Tesoriero, F. (2006). Strengthening communities through women’s self-help groups in South India. Community Development Journal, 41(3), 321–333. https://doi.org/10.1093/cdj/bsi066. The World Bank. (2019). Poverty & equity data portal. http://povertydata.worldbank.org/poverty/ country/IND Accessed 7 Jan 2020. Thomas, T., & Narayanan, P. (2015). Participation pathways. New Delhi: Bookwell Publishers. United Nations Development Programme. (2019). Human Development Report 2019. http://hdr. undp.org/sites/default/files/hdr2019.pdf Accessed 15 Feb 2020. Voth, D.  E., & Brewster, M. (1989). An overview of international community development. In J. A. Christenson & J. W. Robinson (Eds.), Community development in perspective (pp. 3–25). Iowa: Iowa State University Press.

Chapter 5

Searching for Local Answers to Societal Challenges: The Contribution of Civil Society Organizations and Social Innovations to Community Development Jelena Matančević

5.1  Introduction Power and governing capacities of traditional welfare states are weakening as diverse social problems increase. Welfare theory has undergone a paradigmatic shift from welfare state to welfare regimes and welfare society, concepts based on welfare pluralism. This framework has led to the emergence of new type of governance, in which governments are only part of the solution and where innovative and efficient programs are delivered in cooperation with civil society organizations (CSOs) and citizens (Bežovan and Matančević 2017; Brandsen et al. 2014). Active citizenship, citizen participation and encouraging civil engagement, co-production and self-organization have gained prominence in recent years, and governments have been aiming to shift more responsibility to civil society (Brandsen et al. 2014). Civil society is often seen as a panacea for political, social, economic, environmental and other types of problems in contemporary societies (Freise et al. 2010). Local governments are increasingly getting citizens involved in the policymaking process in order to gain support for final policy decisions and to improve policy outcomes, including better provision of services, greater efficiency and opening more opportunities for citizens to promote their interests. Citizen engagement also contributes to building public trust in government, thus contributing to the quality of democracy. Involving citizens in policymaking at community level is today a common policy in many cities in Western Europe (De Graaf et al. 2015). The notion of community development has been receiving greater attention from policymakers and prominence in policy agendas. It is seen as an answer to numerous social problems, such as poverty, social exclusion and marginalization, peripheral poverty of rural and urban areas, erosion of social capital and the crisis of J. Matančević (*) Faculty of Law, Department of Social Work, University of Zagreb, Zagreb, Croatia e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 A. Opačić (ed.), Practicing Social Work in Deprived Communities, European Social Work Education and Practice, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-65987-5_5

107

108

J. Matančević

democratic governance (Aigner et al. 2001; Goodlad et al. 2005). In urban settings, which are increasingly facing problems of rising polarization, social exclusion and increased vulnerability of citizens, social innovations are promoted as a possible answer to growing social problems and a positive contribution to social integration. Cities are places of innovation in institutions and, in terms of governance, are the primary arenas of social movements, action groups and civil society social experiments (Bežovan et al. 2016; Gerometta et al. 2005; Ranci et al. 2014). This chapter will discuss the roles and expectations of civil society organizations (CSOs) and active citizens in dealing with the mentioned social issues and the approach to improving citizens’ lives. The notion of community development, foremost in urban settings and associated with specific social challenges, is placed within relevant conceptual frameworks of governance, co-production and social innovations. Viewed in terms of a policy agenda, these concepts bear hope and expectations for better, more democratic or more sustainable solutions to growing social problems as well as fulfilling needs and the potential for social transformation.

5.2  C  ivil Society, Citizen Participation and Community Development Professional interventions in terms of community development is found in literature under different concepts, such as socio-cultural development, community education, social planning, fight against poverty and social exclusion, social actions and civil society development. Community development is also seen as both a social movement and a profession (Henderson and Vercseg 2010). Vanleene and Verschuere (2018) view community development as a community-based movement for social change. Community development incorporates several ideas and approaches, such as participation in local governance and participation in community organizations, as well participation in informal social realms of family, friendship and neighbourhood (Goodlad et al. 2005). Ideally, the community development process is a movement in which citizens, who become increasingly active, seek ways of improving the quality of life in a community, where citizens create their own organizations and cooperative structures. Activities associated with community development focus on increasing participation (Henderson and Vercseg 2010, p.  30–31). Community-led initiatives, coming from citizens or the market sector, are valuable for producing urban regeneration. Since these urban movements come from stakeholders within urban areas, they are more likely to fit local needs and enhance the commitment of local stakeholders (van Meerkerk et al. 2013). Community development is a discourse of social action informed by communitarian values that aims to promote social inclusion and democratic participation. It is closely related to concepts of community participation, partnership and empowerment (Mayo 1997; Powell and Geoghegan 2006).

5  Searching for Local Answers to Societal Challenges: The Contribution of Civil…

109

Communities are assumed to have the capacity to produce social capital and strengthen cohesion, improve service delivery and better meet social needs, enable citizen engagement in governance and increase the potential of civil society to undertake initiatives. Community development also facilitates building partnerships at different levels (Henderson and Vercseg 2010; Taylor 2007). Partnerships help citizens to express views on the development, coordination and implementation of programs for economic and community development in their actual locality (Aigner et al. 2001). The general goal of community development is the betterment of the neighbourhood by reducing social and societal issues impacting the community and its residents. Besides strengthening social cohesion, it aims to improve physical appearance (e.g. through urban planning) of a neighbourhood, increase the sense of safety (e.g. through community policing) or improve the socioeconomic position of citizens by helping them acquire skills and knowledge (Vanleene and Verschuere 2018). Vanleene and Verschuere (2018) differentiate between direct and indirect effects of community development. Direct effects can range from physical improvements, safer or cleaner neighbourhoods, to integration of people in their neighbourhoods, whereas indirect effects refer to empowerment of citizens, greater social capital, strengthened competences of citizens and increased trust in local government. Social issues in communities are often complex and multidimensional. Accordingly, community development requires multidimensional, innovative and creative action for effective outcomes. It requires an interdisciplinary approach and cooperation in areas such as public administration, community education, adult education, social work, environmental protection, urban development and local and regional development (Henderson and Vercseg 2010; Vanleene and Verschuere 2018). Participation, partnership and community development are also seen as a way of tackling paternalism, empowering service users and carers, as well as reinforcing and developing collective approaches to social solidarity and reciprocity (Mayo 1997). However, partnership between stakeholders is promoted for different reasons, depending on the approach (Mayo 1997; Powell and Geoghegan 2006). In a market-­ led approach, shaped by neo-liberal ideology, participation and community development are seen as ways of identifying and mobilizing additional resources and strengthen the market through privatization and competitive tendering and promote a culture of self-help as opposed to the culture of dependency, state paternalism and bureaucratization. On the other hand, a community-led approach is found in civil society and citizen participation. Accordingly, partnership and citizen participation are promoted with aim of strengthening democratic planning; developing more credible and effective programs; developing new forms of decentralized services, which are better quality and empower users; and reinforcing social solidarity and reciprocity (Mayo 1997; Powell and Geoghegan 2006). Civil society organizations (CSOs) are a vital part of community development and its capacity for transformation. These organizations facilitate learning and a commitment to collective action within the community and represent an essential part of democratic practice. They are important components of civic vital life,

110

J. Matančević

promoting participation by local citizens and encouraging social interaction while creating trust and reciprocity (Henderson and Vercseg 2010; Neumayr and Meyer 2010). Civil society organizations have a potentially central role in community building, advocacy and service provision. They cultivate social capital based on networking and volunteering, either by strengthening groups (bonding social capital) or fostering inclusion and integration (bridging social capital) (Neumayr and Meyer 2010; Pestoff 2010; Wells and Anasti 2019). According to Brown (1998), CSOs play a crucial role in fostering cooperation among unequally powerful parties engaged in solving social problems, and such cooperation results in creating social capital. According to Putnam’s theory, social capital refers to institutional arrangements, that is, trust, norms of reciprocity and tolerance and networks of informal association that foster voluntary cooperation among individuals (Brown 1998). Thus, social capital enhances civic engagement and cooperation among citizens, contributing to solving social, political and economic problems. Civil society is conceived as a space for self-organization, freedom of association and self-regulation. A functioning civil society is vital for nurturing social capital and strengthening of social cohesion, integration and functioning of democracy (Bežovan 2004; Bežovan and Matančević 2017). A general discourse on civil society is accompanied by concepts such as social responsibility, citizenship, activation and participation (Brandsen et al. 2014). According to the literature, CSOs have multiple impacts on society and contribute to a number of direct (e.g. service provision) and latent benefits (e.g. strengthening of social capital). These impacts can be assessed at an individual and wider community levels. The community-level impact and benefits that CSOs provide are usually evident through improved quality of life, the strengthening of social capital, providing a voice and working with socially excluded groups (Mohan and Bennett 2016). Similarly, Kamerāde (2015) distinguishes between the impact of CSOs on human resources (individual level) and community impacts. The relationship between civil society and a community, in terms of outcomes provided by CSOs, is seen in enhancing democracy, community building by facilitating social integration and strengthening social trust, reducing levels of crime and promoting public health (Kamerāde 2015). However, there are pitfalls of civic engagement and CSO activity in disadvantaged communities. Mohan and Bennett (2016) emphasize community-­ level variations in CSO distribution. Different research suggests uneven distribution of CSOs between disadvantaged and affluent communities, and it is hypothesized that it can lead in variations in the opportunities for citizens’ engagement but also in inequalities in access to services that CSOs provide and in meeting social needs (Mohan and Bennett 2016). Theories of participatory democracy, deliberative democracy and social capital argue that citizen participation has a positive effect on democracy, by greater involvement of citizens in the policymaking process, thus increasing legitimacy of the process and outcomes and enhancing civic skills and virtues, such as active participation in public life, reciprocity and trustworthiness, as well as fostering social integration and a sense of belonging to the community (De Graaf et  al. 2015; Michels and de Graaf 2010). Hence, De Graaf et  al. (2015) conceptualized

5  Searching for Local Answers to Societal Challenges: The Contribution of Civil…

111

participation as an important aspect of people’s everyday social life and governance, contributing to citizenship and democracy. The assumption is that citizen engagement leads to empowerment, strengthening legitimacy and inclusion in the actual process. Empowerment happens when citizens who have engaged in the process understand that they have a real voice and are an influencing factor in the process and outcome (Vanleene et al. 2018). Active citizenship, according to Pestoff (2010), is a prerequisite for democracy and democratic governance. It can be particularly challenging for residents in disadvantaged local communities, often characterized by low educational attainment, to become engaged and active citizens. The level of cultural and social capital can be decisive for citizens’ engagement and self-­ organization (Bežovan et  al. 2014). Unemployed, citizens with low educational attainment often need continuous support and leadership coming from professionals in order to actively engage in their communities (Bežovan et  al. 2014; Vanleene et al. 2018). The discourse on citizenship has shifted from viewing citizens as passive consumers of services offered by the state or market to their active role and responsibility in providing services they need, entailing both rights and responsibilities. Building and strengthening the citizenship status require not only state action and statutory rights but also channels of opinion building, dialogue and participation, which means a culture of civility and civicness. It assumes a degree of readiness to engage in self-organized mutual help and support and civic solidarity that goes beyond written rights and duties (Evers and Guillemard 2013).

5.3  C  ommunity Development as Governance and Co-production In the past decades, due to the state’s weakening capacities of coping with diverse and rising social demands and problems, growing expectations have been placed on cooperation grounded in welfare pluralism and involvement of multiple, non-state actors in governing demands. The assumption is that government alone can no longer address complex societal problems nor pursue collective interests (De Graaf et al. 2015; Vanleene et al. 2018). Government needs to act with other stakeholders for effective policymaking and service delivery. At the same time, a discourse on new (social) citizenship emphasizes the need for greater citizen responsibility towards social welfare (Evers and Guillemard 2013). In other words, a discursive shift from ‘welfare state’ to ‘welfare pluralism’ is accompanied by a shift from ‘government’ to ‘governance’ in policymaking process, implying that policymaking should become more open for the involvement of citizens and civil society. Governance is characterized by horizontal, non-­ hierarchical and inter-organizational modes of coordination and decision-making, in contrast to classical top-down government, and includes a variety of actors besides government representatives, including civil society organizations and business actors (Cattacin and Zimmer 2016; De Graaf et  al. 2015). However, power

112

J. Matančević

imbalances can impede involvement of disadvantaged citizens in decision-making and in governance processes. In reality, such processes can still be characterized by a top-down government control, and disadvantaged local communities often remain on the margins in partnerships and other initiatives (Taylor 2007). Governance assumes a plurality of stakeholders, including civil society organizations, in policymaking processes, with the aim of pursuing common and general interests. In such arrangements, civil society organizations are gaining more importance and greater role. They often initiate partnership and bring out emerging social demands that are often not recognized by public authorities (Bežovan and Matančević 2017; Petrella 2009). The notion of governance is related with the concepts such as community, social capital and civil society, enabling state, new combination of markets, hierarchies and networks, greater participation in decision-making, multi-level governance and decentralization (Taylor 2007). Discursive shifts also relate to a changing civil society. The traditional role of CSOs in the provision of services is changing and undergoing refinement, where a ‘new’ civil society is emerging in the context of recent social issues, such as the environment, multicultural society, mobility and public safety, and which have taken different role than opposing government policy (Brandsen et al. 2014). Strengthening governance assumes a certain level of civicness in society. Civicness refers to the capacity of institutions, organizations and procedures to stimulate, reproduce and cultivate civility (Brandsen et al. 2010, p. 11). The political dimension of civicness relates to the quality of governance, whether it includes opportunities for public debates and processes of deliberation, forms of democratic participation by citizens in decision-making or in co-production of services (Brandsen et al. 2010). Governance thus becomes a framework for greater citizen participation, either in decision-making or service delivery, directly or through civil society organizations. Cattacin and Zimmer (2016) pointed out four common trends in the governance of social challenges: (1) co-production, (2) a capabilities-based approach investing in individual capabilities, (3) decentralization and (4) territorial focalization with a tendency to focus less on groups and more on territories or situations through urban planning or community development. The shift from government to governance has created new opportunities for people from disadvantaged communities to engage in decision-making (Taylor 2007). There has been a trend of greater involvement from service users as co-producers of their own services, as well as the spread of new techniques for the co-­management and co-governance of social services (Pestoff 2010). Co-production takes place at either the organizational or individual level. The term is characterized by a combination of activities which both public servants and citizens contribute in the provisioning of public services. Community development initiatives include partners, such as professional community workers who are representative of a public organization and neighbourhood or community residents as individual or groups of citizens. Therefore, co-production is an inherent feature of community development (Steen and Tuurnas 2018;

5  Searching for Local Answers to Societal Challenges: The Contribution of Civil…

113

Vanleene and Verschuere 2018). It assumes in community development collective and joint action by professionals and residents in communities in order to improve their environment and the community’s livability (Bovaird and Loeffler 2012; Vanleene et al. 2018). Co-production also refers to both direct citizens’ participation in service delivery and group provision of such services (Pestoff 2012). Brandsen and Pestoff (2008, p.  5) distinguish three separate concepts: (1) co-governance which refers to an arrangement in which civil society organizations participate in planning and delivery of public services; (2) co-management, an arrangement in which civil society organizations produce services in collaboration with the state; and (3) co-­production in a narrow sense, meaning citizen engagement in the production of services they use, and can be understood as a specific interpretation of user involvement. Bovaird and Loeffler (2012) further distinguish between concepts of co-planning, co-design, co-prioritization, co-financing, co-managing, co-delivery and co-assessment. Pestoff (2009) views co-production as a possible solution to the crisis of the welfare state and democracy but also sees it as a necessary condition of maintaining existing levels of social rights in European welfare regimes. Co-production leads to improved service quality and production efficiency, increasing social capital, but also aims at achieving better outcomes or lower costs and is therefore seen as an opportunity for budgetary reductions in terms of austerity policies (Bovaird and Loeffler 2012; Vanleene et  al. 2017, 2018). Co-production also sets a different vision of public services, built on the principles of reciprocity and mutuality (Bovaird and Loeffler 2012).

5.4  Civil Society and Social Innovations at Community Level The concept of social innovations has gained prominence in recent years. Discussions have been taking place on modifying the capacities of welfare systems to cope with new social risks and demands and on searching for new pathways in dealing with growing social problems and limited resources. Social innovations have empowered people and organizations to develop participative solutions to pressing societal issues (BEPA 2010; Bežovan et  al. 2016). Social innovations are seen as key to fostering social inclusion processes, and civil society organizations are deemed considered to possess the highest potential for socially innovative contributions to social integration (Gerometta et al. 2005). Social innovations can lead to new forms of governance and partnerships, facilitating the participation of excluded or under-­ represented groups. They usually emerge from bottom-up, and are often produced by their users, instead of being delivered to users by professionals. Thus, they narrow the gap between users and professionals (Bežovan et al. 2016). Therefore, the concept of social innovation provides a useful theoretical framework for discussing opportunities for citizen participation in community development. Social innovations promote welfare systems that are based on a pluralism of resources and responsibilities, and they emerge from the boundaries of the business

114

J. Matančević

sector, public sector and community. Fostering social innovation calls for less standardized and localized welfare arrangements, as well as a certain degree of decentralization and diversity. There is a belief that social innovations contribute to overcoming financial difficulties of local social systems and strengthen social cohesion. Furthermore, upgrading the community component is at the core of many social innovations. Community activation and participation is upgraded using innovative concepts for revitalizing urban areas (Bežovan et  al. 2016; Evers and Ewert 2014). Social innovations are defined as new ideas (products, services and models) that simultaneously meet social needs (more effectively than alternatives) and create new social relationships or collaborations. They are innovations that are not only good for society, but also enhance the capacity of society to act (BEPA 2010). Brandsen et  al. (2016, p.  5) define social innovations as both products and processes, ideas translated into practice, and new in the context in which they appear. They also employed the criterion where that social innovations are those that, created mainly by networks and joint actions in social realms beyond business and government routines, at any given moment, raise hope and expectations of progress towards something ‘better’ (a more socially sustainable/democratic/effective society) (p. 6–7).

Howaldt et al. (2014) define social innovation as a new combination or figuration of practices in areas of social action, prompted by certain actors or constellations of actors with the goal of better coping with needs and problems than is possible by using existing practices. Social innovations encompass new practices (concepts, policy instruments, new forms of cooperation and organization), methods, processes and regulations that are developed and adopted by citizens, customers and politicians to meet social demands and resolve societal challenges in a better way than offered by existing practices (Howaldt et al. 2014). Although the meaning of social innovation varies over time and local settings, they are, in a significant way, new and disruptive towards the routines and structures prevailing in a given welfare system (Evers and Ewert 2014). Social innovations assume not only new products or services but also processes of mobilization and participation which leads to improved social relations and governance or capacity building (Bežovan et  al. 2016; Evers and Ewert 2014). Innovations in governance are noticeable in different modalities. These modalities include operating in a more embedded and networked manner instead of working in ‘silos’, giving new concerns and groups a voice in the public domain; organizing more intense forms of public debate, deliberation processes and opinion-building around existing social challenges; or building issue-related coalitions and partnerships to establish a new consensus on priorities and agendas (Evers and Ewert 2014). Examples of social innovations in terms of urban, housing and neighbourhood revitalization, but also using other types of examples, foster a more intense forms of cooperation represented by coalitions, partnerships and alliances. Establishing this kind of collective agency is seen as an important innovative element in policymaking and governance (Evers and Ewert 2014). These innovations

5  Searching for Local Answers to Societal Challenges: The Contribution of Civil…

115

in urban governance assume the creation of new relations and links (Gerometta et al. 2005). Those initiatives often start as social movements, civic action groups or social economy initiatives, which represent diverse social groups and have often proved to have socially innovative impacts (Gerometta et al. 2005). Given their inherent local character, social innovations are much more embedded in the proximate environment than in organizations within a hierarchical system. They are embedded in their institutional environment as local welfare cultures and in the political environment as local governance arrangements. These specific settings create opportunity structures or constraints for social innovations to develop (Cattacin and Zimmer 2016; Evers and Ewert 2014). Social innovations are different from given widespread practices; however, they may become a mainstream practice over time and institutionalized as regular social practice and local welfare systems (Evers and Ewert 2014; Howaldt et al. 2014). These ‘systemic’ social innovations can lead to fundamental changes in attitudes and values, strategies and policies, organizational structures and processes and delivery systems and services and, consequently, play a part in reshaping society as a more participative arena where people are empowered and learning is central (BEPA 2010).

5.5  New Roles of Professionals In community development, professionals are an important link between vulnerable citizens and the local government, as well as in facilitating co-production. Moreover, their input is critical for the success or failure of co-production. They possess knowledge and resources and also mobilize hard-to-reach citizens and encourage citizen participation, thus contributing to greater inclusion, empowerment and equity (Vanleene et al. 2018). Professionals or frontline workers in community development play different but important roles (Durose 2011; Steen and Tuurnas 2018; Vanleene and Verschuere 2018). First, they identify and reach marginalized and excluded groups. Second, they facilitate their inclusion and encourage participation of the excluded and, by building capacity, confidence and skills, contribute to an increased sense of empowerment for them. Professionals ensure that citizens have access to the resources and knowledge they need, e.g. by providing language support. Third, they respond to the needs and wishes of those citizens and ensure they are integrated in the actions of community development, in order to motivate participation. Vanleene et al. (2018) found that professionals are more able to assume the role of a friend, representative, leader or mediator. According to Durose (2011), another role of professionals is in ‘fixing’. This means correlating government objectives and ‘rules’ to organizational opportunities and priorities within the community in order to produce mutually beneficial outcomes. De Graaf et al. (2015) identified in their research two types of practitioners in participation projects taking place in disadvantaged neighbourhoods. The first type

116

J. Matančević

is those working in a real-life world, social entrepreneurs, who initiate projects in neighbourhoods or set up organizations, with an aim to empower disadvantaged citizens. The second type is those who connect organizations or projects in real life with each other or with government policies, thus bridging the life worlds and system worlds. Actions in community development often take place in neighbourhoods that face numerous social issues. Unemployment and social exclusion, along with cultural and ethnic diversity, make it increasingly difficult for services and professionals to reach groups that might be needing their help, due to lack of information, understanding or even trust (Evers and Ewert 2014; Vanleene and Verschuere 2018). Women, ethnic minorities, young people and those with a low education are often under-represented in community participation processes (De Graaf et  al. 2015; Michels and de Graaf 2010). Therefore, especially in disadvantaged neighbourhoods, professionals need to go further than merely invite citizens to meet with civil servants and politicians or to co-produce. Getting citizens involved requires innovative and more personal ways of approaching issues and undertaking non-standard activities, which are often developed by individuals or small groups of practitioners (De Graaf et al. 2015; Vanleene et al. 2017). Bridging the gap between professional services and people’s lives has become an increasing challenge, and there is evidence of social innovations that tackle this problem, by engaging individuals coming from within such communities, which, on one hand, enjoy the trust of their community (e.g. those with a migrant background) and, on the other hand, have experience in making contacts with administrations and their services (Evers and Ewert 2014). Citizens in disadvantaged neighbourhoods often feel powerless and a sense of mistrust. Hence, the role of professionals and their engagement and willingness to co-produce are crucial for achieving effective and successful co-production in community development programs (Vanleene et al. 2018). As Steen and Tuurnas (2018) stated, they need to be ‘motivated motivators’. The willingness of citizens to co-­ produce is influenced by their perception and trust in professionals. In the context of social innovation, Evers and Ewert (2014) stress that social innovations can also assume innovative working arrangements and new roles for professionals. In contrast to the public or business sector, social innovations are often based on a different combination of paid cooperation and different forms of voluntary and civic contributions, ranging from short-term activism to regular volunteering. Also, the demarcation line between those who operate inside the organization and those that get addressed as co-producers is often blurred (Evers and Ewert 2014). However, the role of professionals has also changed. As Bovaird and Loeffler (2012) stated, co-production requires developing new professional skills for working with people. These new profiles of professionals found in social innovation projects are expected to manage tasks that exceed traditional professions and the division of labour. ‘New’ professionals have to learn to engage in dialogue with addressees, co-citizens and volunteers. They are sometimes specialists, entrepreneurs and managers, community organizers and mediators all at the same time (Evers and Ewert

5  Searching for Local Answers to Societal Challenges: The Contribution of Civil…

117

2014). There is a growing emphasis on the competences of professionals which are more relational than technical. Community development professionals need skills to bring together multiple stakeholders, ensure that potentially diverging interests are coordinated, be open-minded and empathetic, good communicators and possess group process skills (Steen and Tuurnas 2018). Not only has the relationship between professionals and citizens changed, but so too between professionals and the management of organizations. Engagement by professionals in co-production is influenced by institutional structures of an organization and their work environment, including their perception of professional autonomy and organizational support for co-production. A supportive organizational culture is essential for institutionalizing co-production in service organizations. It also assumes adjusting structures and procedures as well as incentives for professionals to engage in co-production (Steen and Tuurnas 2018).

5.6  Conclusion This chapter discusses the manner in which civil society, citizen engagement and active citizenship are addressed under a theoretical framework of enhancing actions of community development. In times of rising and diverse social demands, social exclusion and marginalization, and a growing vulnerability of citizens in urban settings, the expectations of policymakers focus on civil society, self-organization and social innovations. On the other hand, promoting citizen engagement, as well as opening decision-making processes to citizens and civil society organizations, is seen as an opportune contribution to enhancing democracy. Citizen involvement in policymaking at local levels, either directly or through civil society organizations, is at the core of the notion of governance and co-production. Furthermore, urban civil society is attributed with the opportunity of producing social innovation, as a new and ‘better’ way of dealing with the mentioned social and societal problems. Indeed, the relevant literature suggests that citizens’ involvement in actions for community development, civil society organizations and social innovations contributes to fostering social inclusion, the empowerment of citizens coming from disadvantaged groups by investment in their capabilities and strengthening social cohesion at local levels. Social innovations eventually lead to the transformation of structures and processes within local welfare systems, which become more open and partnership-­ based, but also lead to changes in attitudes and values. However, there is also empirical evidence on the pitfalls and difficulties of community development practice, the mobilizing of citizens and effective promotion of governance and co-production, that exceeds the limits of this paper (cf. Bovaird and Loeffler 2012; Goodlad et al. 2005; Michels and de Graaf 2010; Mohan and Bennett 2016; Taylor 2007; van Meerkerk et al. 2013). Generally, in deprived local communities, and among residents with low skills and educational attainment, there are greater challenges in promoting civic engagement, self-organization and participation in decision-­making processes. Promoting governance in reality is limited by lack of power of deprived

118

J. Matančević

communities, which get less political recognition and often stay substantially excluded from governance processes. Low levels of cultural and social capital among residents in deprived local communities require certain level of top-down leadership and continuous support coming from professionals for residents to activate and engage in effective co-production, in comparison with better-off local communities. There are also certain new expectations from professionals, who are given new professional roles and have to cope with an increasingly changing (work) environment. Fostering community-led initiatives essentially relies on citizen engagement and social innovations, resulting in greater social inclusion and strengthened social cohesion, genuine support coming from policymakers and local government structures. Finally, the support from organizations to professionals needs to be ensured, where procedures and organizational culture enable professionals to undertake initiatives as well as engage in co-production and social innovations for community development.

References Aigner, S.  M., Flora, C.  B., & Hernandez, J.  M. (2001). The premise and promise of citizenship and civil Society for Renewing Democracies and Empowering Sustainable Communities. Sociological Inquiry, 71(4), 439–507. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-­682X.2001.tb01129.x. Bežovan, G. (2004). Civilno društvo (Civil society). Zagreb: Nakladni zavod Globus. Bežovan, G., & Matančević, J. (2017). Civilno društvo i pozitivne promjene (Civil society and positive changes). Zagreb: Školska knjiga. Bežovan, G., Matančević, J. & Baturina, D. (2014). Varaždin, Croatia. In: Evers, A., Ewert, B. & Brandsen, T. (eds.) Social innovations for social cohesion. Transnational patterns and approaches from 20 European cities. Liege: EMES European Research Network asbl. Accessed 15 June 2020. http://www.wilcoproject.eu/downloads/WILCO-­project-­eReader.pdf Bežovan, G., Matančević, J., & Baturina, D. (2016). Social innovations as a contribution to strengthening social cohesion and mitigating social crisis in European urban social programs (in Croatian). Croatian Journal of Social Policy, 23(1), 61–80. https://doi.org/10.3935/rsp. v23i1.1279. Bovaird, T., & Loeffler, E. (2012). From engagement to co-production: The contribution of users and communities to outcomes and public value. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 23(4), 1119–1138. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-­012-­9309-­6. Brandsen, T., & Pestoff, V. (2008). Co-production, the third sector and the delivery of public services. In V. Pestoff & T. Brandsen (Eds.), Co-production, the third sector and the delivery of public services (pp. 493–501). Abingdon/New York: Routledge. Brandsen, T., Dekker, P., & Evers, A. (2010). Civicness in the governance and delivery of social services. In T. Brandsen, P. Dekker, & A. Evers (Eds.), Civicness in the governance and delivery of social services (pp. 9–17). Baden-Baden: Nomos. Brandsen, T., Verschuere, B., & Trommel, W. (2014). Manufacturing civil society: An introduction. In T. Brandsen, W. Trommel, & B. Verschuere (Eds.), Manufacturing civil society: Principles, practices and effects (pp. 1–14). Houndmills/Basingstoke/Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan. Brandsen, T., Evers, A., Cattacin, S., & Zimmer, A. (2016). Social innovation: A sympathetic and critical interpretation. In T. Brandsen, S. Cattacin, A. Evers, & A. Zimmer (Eds.), Social innovations in the urban context (pp. 3–18). Cham/Heidelberg/New York/Dordrecht/London: Springer.

5  Searching for Local Answers to Societal Challenges: The Contribution of Civil…

119

Brown, D. (1998). Creating social capital: Nongovernmental development organizations and intersectoral prolem solving. In W. W. Powell & E. S. Clemens (Eds.), Private action and the public good. New Haven/London: Yale university press. Bureau of European Policy Advisers (BEPA). (2010). Empowering people, driving change. Social innovation in European Union. https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/ publication/4e23d6b8-5c0c-4d38-bd9d-3a202e6f1e81. Accessed 15 Apr 2020. Cattacin, S., & Zimmer, A. (2016). Urban governance and social Innovaitons. In T.  Brandsen, S. Cattacin, A. Evers, & A. Zimmer (Eds.), Social innovations in the urban context (pp. 21–40). Cham/Heidelberg/New York/Dordrecht/London: Springer. De Graaf, L., van Hulst, M., & Michels, A. (2015). Enhancing participation in disadvantaged urban Neighbourhoods. Local Government Studies, 41(1), 44–62. https://doi.org/10.1080/0300393 0.2014.908771. Durose, C. (2011). Revisiting Lipsky: Front-line work in UK local governance. Political Studies, 59, 978–995. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-­9248.2011.00886.x. Evers, A., & Ewert, B. (2014). Introduction: Social innovations for social cohesion: 77 cases from 20 European cities. In A. Evers, B. Ewert, & T. Brandsen (Eds.), Social innovations for social cohesion. Transnational patterns and approaches from 20 European cities. Liege: EMES European Research Network asbl. Evers, A., & Guillemard, A.-M. (2013). Introduction: Marshall’s concept of citizenship and contemporary welfare reconfiguration. In A. Evers & A.-M. Guillemard (Eds.), Social policy and citizenship: The changing landscape. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press. Freise, M., Pyykkönen, M., & Vaidelyte, E. (Eds.). (2010). A panacea for all seasons? Civil society and governance in Europe. Baden-Baden: Nomos. Gerometta, J., Häussermann, H., & Longo, G. (2005). Social innovation and civil Society in Urban Governance: Strategies for an inclusive city. Urban Studies, 42(11), 2007–2021. https://doi. org/10.1080/00420980500279851. Goodlad, R., Burton, P., & Croft, J. (2005). Effectiveness at what? The processes and impact of community involvement in area-based initiatives. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 23(6), 923–938. https://doi.org/10.1068/c45m. Henderson, P., & Vercseg, I. (2010). Community development and civil society. Making connections in the European context. Bristol: The Policy Press. Howaldt, J., Butzin, A., Domanski, D., & Kaletka, C. (2014). Theoretical approaches to social innovation – a critical literature review. A deliverable of the project: Social innovation: Driving force of social change (SI-DRIVE). Dortmund: Sozialforschungsste. http://www.si-­drive.eu/ wp-­content/uploads/2014/11/D1_1-­Critical-­Literature-­Review.pdf. Accessed 10 Apr 2020. Kamerāde, D. (2015). Third sector impacts on human resources and community, TSI Working Paper No. 3, Seventh Framework Programme (grant agreement 613034), European Union. Brussels: Third Sector Impact. Mayo, M. (1997). Partnership for regeneration and community development: Some opportunities, challenges and constraints. Critical Social Policy, 17(52), 3–26. https://doi. org/10.1177/026101839701705201. Michels, A., & de Graaf, L. (2010). Examining citizen participation: Local participatory policy making and democracy. Local Government Studies, 36(4), 447–491. https://doi.org/10.108 0/03003930.2010.494101. Mohan, J., & Bennett M.R. (2016). Community-level impacts of the third sector: does the local distribution of voluntary organisations influence the likelihood of volunteering?, TSI Working Paper Series No. 7, Seventh Framework Programme (grant agreement 613034), European Union. Brussels: Third Sector Impact. Neumayr, M., & Meyer, M. (2010). In search of civicness: An empirical investigation of service delivery, public advocacy, and community building by civil society organizations. In T. Brandsen, P. Dekker, & A. Evers (Eds.), Civicness in the governance and delivery of social services (pp. 201–226). Baden-Baden: Nomos. Pestoff, V. (2009). A democratic architecture for the welfare state. Oxon/New York: Routledge.

120

J. Matančević

Pestoff, V. (2010). Civicness and the co-production of social services in Sweden. In T. Brandsen, P.  Dekker, & A.  Evers (Eds.), Civicness in the governance and delivery of social services (pp. 99–112). Baden-Baden: Nomos. Pestoff, V. (2012). Co-production and third sector social Services in Europe: Some crucial conceptual issues. In V. Pestoff, T. Brandsen, & B. Verschuere (Eds.), New public governance, the third sector and co-production. Oxon/New York: Routledge. Petrella, F. (2009). Civil society and new forms of governance: The case of childcare services in a european perspective. In B. Enjolras & K. H. Sivesind (Eds.), Civil society in comparative perspective. Comparative social research (A research annual, Vol. 26) (pp. 25–48). Bingley: Emerald Books. Powell, F., & Geoghegan, M. (2006). Beyond political zoology: Community development, civil society, and strong democracy. Community Development Journal, 41(2), 128–142. https://doi. org/10.1093/cdj/bsi062. Ranci, C., Brandsen, T., & Sabatinelli, S. (Eds.). (2014). Social vulnerability in European cities: The role of local welfare in times of crisis. Houndmills/Basingstoke/Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan. Steen, T., & Tuurnas, S. (2018). The role of the professional in co-production and co-creation process. In T.  Brandsen, T.  Steen, & B.  Verschuere (Eds.), Co-production and co-creation: Engaging citizens in public services (pp. 198–207). New York/Abingdon: Routledge. Taylor, M. (2007). Community participation in the real world: Opportunities and pitfalls in new governance spaces. Urban Studies, 44(2), 297–317. https://doi.org/10.1080/00420980601074987. van Meerkerk, I., Boonstra, B., & Edelenbos, J. (2013). Self-organization in urban regeneration: A two-case comparative research. European Planning Studies, 21(10), 1630–1652. https://doi. org/10.1080/09654313.2012.722963. Vanleene, D., & Verschuere, B. (2018). Co-production in community development. In T. Brandsen, T. Steen, & B. Verschuere (Eds.), Co-production and co-creation: Engaging citizens in public services (pp. 198–207). New York/Abingdon: Routledge. Vanleene, D., Voets, J., & Verschuere, B. (2017). Co-producing a nicer neighbourhood: Why do people participate in local community development projects? Lex Localis – Journal of Local Self-Government, 15(1), 111–132. https://doi.org/10.4335/15.1.111-­132(2017). Vanleene, D., Voets, J., & Verschuere, B. (2018). The co-production of a community: Engaging citizens in derelict neighbourhoods. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 29(1), 201–221. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-­017-­9903-­8. Wells, R., & Anasti, T. (2019). Hybrid models for social change: Legitimacy among community-­ based nonprofit organizations. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-­019-­00126-­3.

Chapter 6

Developing Social Work Competencies to Empower Challenging Communities: From an Empty Foyer to a Shared Social Space Matilda Leppänen, Joonas Kiviranta, Anna Metteri, Paul Stepney, and Tuula Kostiainen

6.1  ‘Street-Level Bureaucrats’ Tossed into the Community It all began when two social work practitioners who worked in an office-based statutory setting stepped into the role of community social work practitioners. From there began a social experiment to explore what happens when professional street level bureaucrats are tossed into the community (Lipsky 1980). Alongside working with the community, these two social work practitioners continued performing their statutory duties with the city’s immigrant social services. This combination was made possible by allocating half their office hours to community social work. The aim was to turn an empty foyer of a local recreation centre into a drop-in community centre called Kototori, offering support to new residents. The name Kototori is an invented word, derived from the Finnish words home (koti), market square (tori) and integration (kotoutuminen). This drop-in centre is located in Hervanta, a multicultural suburb of 25,000 residents in the city of Tampere, Finland. In 2018 every fifth (21.1%) resident in Hervanta had a foreign background, which is the highest in Tampere (Tampere alueittain 2018). The city of Tampere is geographically sub-divided into seven areas, which are compared with each other by statistical indicators. The areas resemble each other, but there are some factors which are characteristic of Hervanta, the Southeastern area. Hervanta was built in the 1970s, and it is described as a city-like area with imposing blocks of flats, surrounded by parks, nature areas and forest. In the overall

M. Leppänen · A. Metteri · P. Stepney · T. Kostiainen (*) 33014 Tampere University, Tampere, Finland e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] J. Kiviranta City of Tampere, Social Services, Tampere, Finland e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 A. Opačić (ed.), Practicing Social Work in Deprived Communities, European Social Work Education and Practice, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-65987-5_6

121

122

M. Leppänen et al.

number of blocks of flats in Hervanta, 16.1% of blocks are now exclusively occupied by residents who speak a foreign language other than Finnish, Swedish or Sami language. In the other areas, the corresponding rate differs from 1.7% to 7%. Many newly arrived immigrants find their home in Hervanta. The population of Hervanta is socioeconomically diverse, including well-off middle class and less affluent groups. Birth rates are higher than elsewhere in Tampere. The poverty of families with children is high. The median socioeconomic level of residents in Hervanta is lower than in neighbouring areas, with more people living in tenements. The unemployment rate is 17.2%, the highest in the Tampere region. Regarding average income, 24.3% of residents earn below 10,000 euros per year compared to 18.7% in Tampere (Tampere alueittain 2018). At the same time, Hervanta has a strong economic outlook, providing work in industry, education, communication, social and health services. To stimulate growth, the city of Tampere has invested significant resources to boost social and economic development. However, potential risks include segregation, social exclusion and possible hostilities between different social groups. Consequently, the aim of the TEKO project was promoting two-way integration, self-efficacy and supporting people seeking support. Kototori began in 2016 as a part of a larger three-year pilot project, ‘Enhancing Two-Way Integration through Community Work’ (abbrev. TEKO). The cooperating partners were the city of Tampere, the Evangelical Lutheran Parishes of Tampere, Tampere University and Tampere University of Applied Sciences. The main target group was immigrants who were in the early stages of integration into Finnish society. The first objective of the project was to create an interdisciplinary operational model for enhancing integration, based on the strategy and service model of the city of Tampere, and the shared equal participation of all residents. The second objective was to enhance and support the target group’s ability to manage their own lives. This was achieved by developing low threshold counselling services, organised through Kototori, which included personal assistance and guidance in various languages without booked appointments. The third objective was to enhance multifaceted integration. The fourth and final objective was to develop cross-sectoral cooperation in services. The project initiated an experiential and collaborative learning process, whereby the participating practitioners reassessed and updated their work methods to reflect community needs (Kolb 1984; Schön 1983). The project endeavoured to reach its objectives by supporting individual immigrants to become experts by experience, recruiting local volunteers, developing a community social work model and by organising discussion groups, expert by experience training and community training (Community Action Based Learning for Empowerment (CABLE) (Valve 2013). Kototori was an outcome of the project TEKO, and the four objectives continue to guide the development of community activities and values. Kototori was selected the best new social work innovation of 2019 (Talentia 2019, Union of Professional Social Workers in Finland). The two social work practitioners were not given any fixed structures or ‘off-the-­ shelf’ methods for their work. Kototori required something different in comparison

6  Developing Social Work Competencies to Empower Challenging Communities…

123

with their usual office-based work. It required figuring out how statutory social work should change when operating outside its headquarters. The social workers had the freedom to experiment and develop new structures and different ways of working. Their statutory responsibility was to provide and co-ordinate counselling and guidance services at the drop-in centre. The idea was to develop preventive community social work strategies (Stepney 2014) that harness migrants’ capabilities so that they become active residents. This required structural changes in the work environment and working methods. The lack of guidelines and existing structures made the process both exhausting and at the same time rewarding, reflecting a process of learning by trial and error. Monthly supervision and project team meetings at Kototori offered shared space for reflection, adapting the culture of not-knowing (see Dore 2020) and managing uncertainty. A completely new understanding developed concerning professional roles and responsibilities. Our aim in this chapter is to analyse Kototori as a case study of how social work competence can be understood, defined and transformed in the social and professional context of a drop-in community centre. We begin with a literature review through which we will explore roots of experimentation and the concepts of competency, competence and contextual expertise. We will also briefly describe the data and methods used as the basis for the analysis. The results of this process will then be subject to further examination in order to capture and portray the transformation of social work practitioners’ roles and identity at Kototori.

6.2  D  eveloping Competence and Expertise for Collaborative Community Practice in Challenging Communities The aim of Kototori is to promote two-way integration and communication between newcomers and long-term residents. Consequently, when the problems newcomers face become too complex, they can pop into face-to-face encounters at Kototori. This is the time to support the active role and identity of a resident to enable them to hold their life situation in their own hands. It follows that social work at Kototori creates a preventive social frame, whereby service users bring their questions, problems and stories about their everyday life (Goffman 1974; Garfinkel 1967). These conversations tell about the world of residents and their local cultures (Gubrium and Holstein 1995; Juhila et al. 2013). Local culture refers to the shared meanings and interpretations that residents in relatively disadvantaged communities use to construct the content and shape of their lives (Gubrium and Holstein 1995). The Kototori approach is based on dialogue (Seikkula and Arnkil 2006) and co-­ development between professionals and residents. Social work in Kototori is informed by theories of relationship-based social work (O’Leary et al. 2012) instead of the neoliberal, new managerial and technical models that have dominated social services management during recent decades.

124

M. Leppänen et al.

Kototori was designed as an experiment-driven project. It was informed by pragmatic ideas in which knowledge production is based on a consideration of practical consequences and the belief that all knowledge is uncertain and can be used as a practical tool for social improvement. When the experiment is conducted in everyday practice, it allows service users to influence and work in cooperation with practitioners. Experimenting requires a pragmatist attitude, reflective dialogical discussions, thorough reasoning, mutual recognition and respect, agreed leadership and a fair division of participants’ responsibilities (Muurinen 2019b). Definitions of competency and competence are contested (Short 1984), and the project challenged many dominant assumptions. Competency refers to a specific attribute that may be possessed by someone within a system of related competencies, connoting a concrete category on which a person’s sufficiency may be judged. It is also a quality related to a state of being which characterises a person as being competent, able, adequate or sufficient within such a category. Competence has normally been reserved for the latter of these connotations, the quality or state of being competent. Fook et al. (2000) have chosen to use the term ‘expertise’, when they scrutinise contextual knowledge and know-how in social work. Further, in Finland novice social work is defined using the components of novice expertise (Lähteinen et al. 2017). In this chapter social work expertise is viewed as contextual social work, where expertise takes shape as a result of the compilation of different specific competencies. At the beginning of Kototori, the social worker and social instructor had basic professional competence from their higher education and office-based work. The social instructor had the Bachelor’s degree in social services and had developed competence and skills in: • • • • •

Ethics Client service Social service system Societal analysis and influencing Reflective development and management

The core of the degree programme is ethical competence. The work of the social sector is guided by the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights and by Finnish laws and regulations of social rights (Tampere University of Applied Sciences 2020). The social worker’s academic Master’s degree programme produces broad-based knowledge and skills for work with service users at the individual, family, community and societal levels. At its core social work involves reconciliation of different societal and individual interests in an ethically sustainable manner, defending human rights, promoting equality, strengthening people’s social functionality, alleviating suffering and enhancing well-being. Social work novice expertise can be described in terms of several components: • Social sciences • Research methodology • Ethics

6  Developing Social Work Competencies to Empower Challenging Communities…

• • • • • • •

125

Interaction Theory and working methods Legal knowledge and decision Comprehensive command of information on the system of services Knowledge and skills in the areas of development and change Leadership Structural social work

In addition to mastery of these components and responsibilities, successful performance also requires expertise in a specialised branch of social work (Lähteinen et al. 2017). According to Fook et al. (1997, 2000), professional social work expertise is theoretically difficult to define. The theoretical knowledge base is broad, constantly being critically evaluated and ever expanding (Thompson and Stepney 2018). Nonetheless an interesting model was developed by Dreyfus and Dreyfus (1986) concerning the stages of skill acquisition and especially the stage of proficient and the stage of expert which are context-free and concern experienced practitioners. It is notable that proficient decision-making is analytical while the expert is intuitive. Therefore, Fook et al. (2000) prefer the analytical proficient definition. They criticise the traditional way of conceptualising professional skills, which are individually based rather than contextual. In their own research, they have tried to identify and contextualise expertise in situations where social workers and community development practitioners locate themselves within a specific practice context and are able to act relevantly within that context. It is important to reveal how knowledge and its acquisition are conceptualised. When practitioners learn to practise, they develop knowledge about phenomenon and knowledge about how to use that knowledge. It is also important for practitioners to reveal the basic values of the profession in their work and broader commitment to values of social justice and human rights (Fook et al. 1997, 2000). Experts relate in a holistic way to the social context of their work rationally, emotionally, subjectively and morally. Professional development includes the dimensions of contextuality and reflexivity. Contextuality refers to the extent to which practitioners are context bound and the degree to which they are aware of contexts and how these are conceptualised. Reflexivity refers to the degree to which practitioners are able to locate themselves in their contexts as responsible and influential agents in which they feel empowered to act. Their influence is recognised as purposeful involvement and participative, rather than having a purely intervention or service-delivery focus. An expert professional can operate according to a broader set of human and social values, without being stultified by organisational boundaries. Fook et  al. (2000) suggest that expert practitioners recognise multiple viewpoints, conflicts and complexities. Further, they are open to the possibility of change and use knowledge creatively from diverse sources. Their broader vision gives them meaning and a sense of continuity in unpredictable situations. They are therefore able to deal with uncertainty by maintaining a higher order of meaning which is flexible enough to adapt and respond to a variety of situations. It also involves

126

M. Leppänen et al.

creative ability to devise new categories of understanding and appropriate strategies (Fook et al. 2000). The kind of expertise described above can be adopted in community work in challenging or disadvantaged communities, where situations can be unpredictable and where the histories of the community do not always guarantee readymade trusting relationships between residents and with state social services. Procedural knowledge is information about how to use substantive knowledge in situations which are unpredictable and conflictual. Substantive knowledge constitutes information about facts, concepts and relationships. Procedural knowledge is information about how to use substantive knowledge in situations, and it is not usually context specific. Substantive knowledge may be characterised by specialist knowledge, specific to a domain or context. Doubtless both kinds of knowledge are needed for competent practice. Relevant substantive knowledge might be better learned in relation to specific settings reflecting agency expectations and procedures. Success in new situations demands above all the ability to bear uncertainty, unpredictability and solve conflicts (Fook et al. 2000).

6.3  Research Data and Method In this research, the transformation of social work competencies was studied in the experimental working culture of a drop-in community centre. We asked the following question: How do social work competencies transform in an experimental work culture of a drop-in community centre supporting two-way integration? The data for our research derives from participant observation of the social work practitioners. Critical thinking and interaction with other participants during observations were an essential part of the research process. Participant observation requires an understanding of the context and work culture. This can be achieved by participating actively in the community and experiencing everyday reality. The observational method used could be best described as open and informal and was formed through action and interaction. It also required the observers to have their own experience of Kototori (Vilkka 2018). Further, two of the authors have been participant observers at Kototori in their role as supervisor, researcher, educator, project team member and chair of the steering group. Kototori’s designated practitioners performed their observations within their social worker’s role. They also observed the drop-in centre as community members who have an active, visible and responsible role. The observation method can also be seen to have an ethnographic dimension since the drop-in centre is strongly linked to the project workers’ own contribution and way of working (Vilkka 2006). Active, frequent participant observation made it possible to achieve a good match between direct services and community needs. The second type of data comes from tape-recorded discussion in November 2019 where practice at the drop-in centre was discussed, inspired by articles written by Leppänen and Kiviranta (2019) and Stepney (2019). The recording was transcribed

6  Developing Social Work Competencies to Empower Challenging Communities…

127

(28 pages) and analysed. The basic approach to analyse and interpret the data was Goffman’s (1974) frame analysis. A frame includes a set of concepts and theoretical orientations that organise experiences and direct the actions of individuals, groups and communities. The drop-in centre can be understood as a social frame, which is different from the social frame of statutory, office-based social work. Following Goffman, we explore ‘What happens here and what are the roles and identities of the workers?’ (Goffman 1974). In the frame analysis, the action and interaction pattern of workers are studied as well as their capacity and role function. This enabled the type of expertise and compilation of competencies for community social work produced in Kototori to be tracked. According to Goffman (1974), it is possible to study the actor status in context, transformation and their competences. The actor – their role, person and identity – is in relation to the social frame and its interaction. On the other side, actor transformations indicate frame limits and tell us something about their character.

6.4  S  ocial Work Practitioners’ Roles and Identities at the Community Drop-In Centre Kototori was established as an open access, low-threshold community drop-in centre without pre-booked appointments. It emphasises the availability and accessibility of services in several languages (Arabic, Persian, Dari, Somali, Russian, English, Finnish). The central location makes it possible for visitors to ‘pop in’ on their way to the nearby shopping centre. At the drop-in centre, visitors are empowered to decide when and why they use services, and it is the social work practitioners’ responsibility to assess how to meet their needs. The new social frame found at Kototori was informality within formality. This meant that the drop-in centre soon became an environment that helped deconstruct power relations between practitioners and visitors. Professional workers’ ability to create informal relationships was a vital element in promoting equality and building trust. Informality means sharing power and responsibilities by working together (Fook and Napier 2000; Muurinen 2019a) and actively engaging the community in the development of Kototori. The very basic structures at the centre created an inclusive and relaxed learning environment. Guidance and counselling were given at round tables where visitors and workers stood together as equals. The deconstruction of power relations supports Kototori visitors to become active citizens. This means social work practitioners giving visitors space, time and recognition (Honneth 1995; Turtiainen 2018). This helps individuals regain power over their own lives, strengthen self-efficacy and become less dependent on social work services. By observing the everyday life of Kototori, it was found that visitors had four types of needs: • Need for help – ‘Would you help me fill this form?’ • Need for guidance – ‘How do I reply to this request for clarification?’ ‘Where do I go for help with this issue?’

128

M. Leppänen et al.

• Need for support – ‘I just came to make sure I’m filling this application form correctly’. • Need for community – ‘I’m just here for coffee’. Dropping into Kototori meant visitors being able to ask questions and then define and describe their own needs, which often transformed into motivated action. This process gave the visitors control over their situation. For the social work professionals, it meant adapting to a shared situation and being seated on ‘the passenger seat’. This shift in power relations and visitors acting for themselves played an important role and led to feelings of self-accomplishment. This process also locates Kototori as an arena that practises preventive social work (Stepney 2014). Giving spoken recognition and understanding of the competence and skills of the visitors are essential for the standing of Kototori in the community. The recognition of visitors’ language skills provided an opportunity for visitors or volunteers to take up a new position as Community Advisors. Community Advisors provide service to visitors in their own language alongside social work practitioners, who offer professional support and oversee the quality of the service given. Some community advisers have later got a paid job in immigrant social services or started a BA education in social services. Kototori’s informal environment helps build trust at both the individual and the community, which can turn into fluency of guidance and counselling. The drop-in centre breaks problems into more manageable portions, making them lighter to deal with, compared with how issues are commonly handled within statutory office-­ based settings. Visitors often seek help before problems have reached an uncontrollable level, and retaining control and ownership of the problem assists in finding solutions. Visitors are given as much time as they need to complete the paperwork, so they learn to communicate with bureaucracies. The interaction between a visitor and a practitioner at Kototori is not controlled or framed by any top-down management model. This enhanced the sense of open dialogue and less the sense of interrogation (Roivainen et al. 2019). Feedback from visitors has been collected twice a year and clearly reveals that Kototori has become a meaningful place that has had a positive and encouraging effect on their everyday lives. This combination of shared environment and humane approach was experienced as empowering by both visitors and social work practitioners alike. The visitors reported gaining valuable knowledge and skills to cope with everyday problems, while social work practitioners reported that Kototori had enhanced their well-being and helped update their professional skills. A working day at Kototori was often described as being refreshing, interesting with variation in work, and a culture and environment that made resident’s issues lighter to handle.

6.5  A Compilation of Competencies The social work practitioners felt that a vital transformation had occurred within their professional role and identity while working simultaneously in the statutory field and in the community social work field at Kototori. The dual role was

6  Developing Social Work Competencies to Empower Challenging Communities…

129

something that neither of Kototori’s practitioners had experienced before. Working in a shared community space required rethinking and reassessing their position as social work practitioners and stepping outside the familiar office-based role and stepping into uncertainty. It was like starting work at a construction site with an empty toolbox or someone else’s toolbox. This status transformation (Goffman 1974) afforded a new perspective on professionalism and can be classified into four elements: forming relationship-based social work, sense of community and community-based social work, experimentation and shared action for social change and finally creativity and analytical thinking.

6.5.1  Forming Relationship-Based Social Work Social work at Kototori is based on building and maintaining constructive relations, advancing social inclusion and promoting justice and equality. Forming a bond with visitors, other local actors and organisations required sensitivity and giving more of one’s self. Goffman (1974) writes about the relationship between the actor and interactive system, the frame, in which the role is performed, and how the performer’s self is seen. How the role is performed will allow for some ‘expression’ of personal identity that is characteristic not only of the role but also of the person (Banks 2012; Payne 2014). The individual, organisational and community levels can be seen as three dimensions of relationship-based social work. Each of these levels requires a specified know-how (procedural knowledge), and in Kototori’s case the know-how was learned through action. Within the individual level, the basis of the relationship between the visitor and social practitioner is created through interactions at the drop-in centre. It was made clear to every practitioner that they should ‘embrace the moment’ when a visitor enters the centre. The way the visitor is greeted and welcomed formed the basis for effective interaction. It also helped to create Kototori’s open, relaxed and unique environment. From that first encounter, the process of creating relations and trust begins (Seikkula and Arnkil 2006; Thompson 2015, 2016). Kototori, being part of a project with statutory social work support, gave the practitioners unstated permission to show courage and put ideas immediately into practice. Trying out new solutions did not require prior approval. The role of Kototori within the organisational level could be described as a friendly infiltrator of community social work. This made it possible for workers to create change in the city’s social service organisation from within. To achieve this, it was essential that the drop-in centre was not operated by a third sector organisation. Kototori’s importance for statutory social work could be seen in multiple ways. The drop-in centre clearly helps ease the long queues at the social services information desk in the city centre. Further, social workers found that, during appointments, they have more time for psychosocial assessments as service users have already completed paperwork at the drop-in centre.

130

M. Leppänen et al.

Courage is also needed in the everyday life at Kototori since the content of a day is truly unpredictable. Some might even describe the atmosphere on a busy Friday afternoon as chaotic, but perhaps less chaos and more the management of uncertainty. A community social work service like this calls for flexibility and reassessment of one’s comfort zone by becoming accustomed to the uncomfortable. Certainly, there are structures and rules for the drop-in centre’s service, and social work practitioners are responsible for maintaining a welcoming and peaceful atmosphere. Any inappropriate behaviour will not be tolerated, and there are predetermined measures that operate if something unacceptable would happen. Courage and flexibility turned out to be the vital elements of relation-based social work (Thompson 2015). Balancing and adapting these elements within the professional social frame were often challenging yet rewarding. Kototori as an organisation challenges the existing managerialist structures of statutory social work by demonstrating how municipalities and their practitioners can meet the needs of residents by going out on foot into the community. By developing new community practices, social workers meet the requirements of structural social work regulated by Finnish legislation. Kototori is an example of a resilient structure built on alliances and mutual understanding. This type of structure calls for social work practitioners to show courage and challenge existing structures to promote change. The development process epitomised by Kototori requires patience, self-efficacy and developing indigenous skills and resources within the community rather than import them.

6.5.2  Sense of Community and Community-Based Social Work And this is where we are now, with these people. We understand better the environment, the situation and those people, so we start to change our position towards that direction. We start to use the law and the means that exist, to make that change. And that’s structural social work, if anything. And it combines community social work with structural social work. This changes, community social work changes those perceptions of reality, and structural social work is that change. (M11)

Understanding and ‘sensing the community’ are essential in such a community social work process as seen at Kototori. It is important to understand that social work is not the only source responsible for social activity. Seeing the ability of the community creates new measures and resources for social work, and it opens our eyes to seeing that many needs are shared needs. Shared needs require shared effort to find shared solutions. In order to fully work with the community, it is important to invest in getting to know the community (Stepney 2018). That is why the process at Kototori began by the social work practitioners having an ‘open door’ policy and spending time in the suburb of Hervanta.

 Research participant ‘M1’ has been anonymised to protect privacy and confidentiality.

1

6  Developing Social Work Competencies to Empower Challenging Communities…

131

Kototori continues to reach more visitors every year. In the beginning of 2020, the number of visitors ranges from 30 to 55 per day. The drop-in centre is open to everyone, and the services provided are unrestricted. It is impossible to outline the services given at Kototori, since the intention is that a visitor can drop in with any issue. The visitor together with the social work professionals and community advisors will tackle any problem. If the issue is insolvable at Kototori, the visitor is guided to the appropriate service provider. Kototori’s visitors come from various backgrounds and diverse life situations. Some visitors have only recently arrived in Tampere, while others might have been employed for several years and have settled routines. Some people visit Kototori just to socialise and have a cup of coffee. Throughout the development of the drop-in centre, it has been understood that involving the community is the key to success. Many visitors experience Kototori as their home base and have developed feelings of ownership over the centre. This creates both challenges and evidence of success. Shared ownership can be seen, for example, in frequent visits to Kototori and in the way visitors want to ‘give something back’ by volunteering or offering help as community advisors. A few visitors have seen the centre as a place where they can express their feelings, beliefs and opinions. These have been situations that required sensitivity and instant reaction to uphold Kototori’s values of equity and openness. Early intervention and open discussion have turned out to be the vital elements in creating durable structures and keeping Kototori under the supervision of social work professionals. It is important to share ownership, but it is as important to set limits to maintain Kototori’s purpose as a welcoming drop-in centre for all. There is growing recognition that work at the drop-in centre remains unfinished. It is essential that Kototori remains a reactive structure that evolves according to the community’s needs. For example, at the beginning of 2019, the centre changed its opening hours in order to better suit the daily rhythm of visitors. Community social work depends on goodwill and a vision. It has to operate within the community and not from the headquarters faraway. Working with the community requires visible, active and concrete participation. It is essential that community social workers are visible, empathetic and approachable people. These are skills that are easiest to learn and develop through action. Kototori’s workers have a slogan ‘Try it, ditch it, develop it’. This encourages them to bravely find new solutions to tackle dysfunctional systems, even better when the solution comes from the visitors or the community advisors. In the early stages of Kototori’s development, local organisations were invited in to discuss and share ideas about working together. Local organisations had ideas and the willingness to organise different activities in Hervanta, but they did not have appropriate venues. Kototori was able to offer space and help find funding. In exchange the members of organisations came to the drop-in centre to work as community advisors and provide activities for groups of local people. This was an important way to create forums for dialogue and increase the ‘sense of community’ in the area.

132

M. Leppänen et al.

6.5.3  Experimentation and Shared Action for Social Change Community advisors provide an important link with the community as they interact and offer counselling to the visitors at Kototori. Community advisors have a significant role in finding ways to interact with local organisations and people in the various apartment buildings. They gain knowledge and information during the work they do with social work practitioners. This information does not only stay within the frame of Kototori, because community advisors are also active members of their own ethnic communities. Current knowledge and information was spread to the appropriate communities involved. Community advisors along with the practitioners of Kototori had an innovatory idea to bring counselling services closer to the people by offering them in the community rooms of apartment buildings. Community advisors themselves lived in these same buildings or in the local area, so they were known to many residents. This created trust and, importantly, lowered the threshold to ask for help. It was found that shared actions created shared thinking, both on a community level and on an organisational level. The needs of the visitors to the drop-in centre were not confined to the field of social services. Therefore, it was necessary to make Kototori a shared environment so that other organisations could find their place. A large number of visitors’ issues were related to the Social Insurance Institution of Finland (SII), and soon SII set up their own stand at Kototori twice a month. Also, a nurse from the local health centre became a regular visitor every Friday afternoon helping visitors to book healthcare appointments and making health service needs assessments. Working together in a shared environment at the drop-in centre had a positive impact on the workers from visiting organisations. At Kototori it was possible to try out a more inclusive community-based and needs-based way of working and, importantly, take the lessons learned back to their parent organisations. Social networks and teamwork with local organisations helped to develop Kototori into a service with a vision of providing holistic care and support. It became a shared goal to learn how to work together with a shared needs-based and community-­based approach. Many projects have seen Kototori as a place to reach people, and this shows an understanding of the need for services to actively reach out into the community. This all supported Kototori’s aim to transform faceless street-level bureaucrats (Lipsky 1980) into approachable and responsive workers.

6.5.4  Creativity and Analytical Thinking Throughout this chapter, it has been said that Kototori required something new and giving a little more of one’s self, including stepping out of one’s comfort zone. This describes Kototori as an action-orientated agency working with creativity and analytical thinking. Somehow, I, of course, I always think in the chaos situation. (M1)

6  Developing Social Work Competencies to Empower Challenging Communities…

133

Creativity and creative analysis were both characteristic features of the new roles of practitioners. The model used when creating this drop-in centre was that a social instructor and a social worker worked as a team. This helped manage doubts and prevented anyone collapsing under the stress and feelings of uncertainty. Active collaboration with the university involving supervision, research and student practitioners helped promote critical reflection and analytical thinking. Working intensively made rapid and direct communication possible, and this created enough safety to openly discuss doubts and uncertainties. Reflective dialogue created conditions for creative teamwork in the new frame of community social work. Before Kototori there had been a rise in concerns reflecting a new way of thinking within immigrant social services. Social work practitioners had become worried that service users seemed to become more and more dependent on social services, so something had to be done. Even if Kototori had been built from scratch, the need for it was already recognised. This need then became visible through Kototori. It is said that creativity cannot be artificially forced, and this was the case at Kototori. The freedom and space given to the team to develop helped create a physical arena where attempts are encouraged, mistakes are accepted and immediate success isn’t required. However, working at the drop-in centre did not mean that it was only creative actions, attempts and errors. All of the above would have been pointless if the team had not been open for analytical processing and critical reflection on their actions and choices. The social work practitioners working at the drop-in centre constantly observed and monitored their own work through an exploratory and reflective lens, both among themselves and with others (Schön 1983). For its social work practitioners, experiencing a work environment such as Kototori has been a transformative learning process (Mezirow 1991). It has given them a creative and analytical way of working within the frame of community social work. Instead of being restricted by managers, they were encouraged to just give it go.

6.6  Working Close and Together A transformation has happened. I don’t change even though I go from one place to another. But of course, the way people see me, that changes. The same people who greet me as visitors at Kototori, they experience the situation a little “icy” when I see them at the lobby at Sarvis (the social services centre). … But at the lobby at Sarvis, there’s something, ­something happens. I notice that the same people don’t make contact with me either. But then again, I feel that during a meeting with my service user I can use the exact same genuine immediacy and something, some sort of, sort of working really close – I feel that the competencies when they change, you see they are brought also here to Sarvis, that’s at its best. (M1)

The best way to describe the way of working at Kototori is working close to people and close to the statutory social work institution. The social work practitioners working in both worlds (statutory and community social work) act as mediators keeping all parties up to date and aware of each other. Kototori can be seen as a

134

M. Leppänen et al.

place that offers space for person to person interaction and dialogue. This dialogue creates the required sensitivity to understand that there is a need for physical places that offer space for face-to-face interactions (Seikkula and Arnkil 2006). The professional transformation created a ‘travelling competence’ that followed these social work practitioners and can now be seen in their office-based statutory work in immigrant social services. The transformation includes a broadened understanding of how to support the integration process by providing different tools and community resources to support individual’s self-efficacy and ownership of their own lives. The use of informality as a tool of community social work created discussion about the limits and boundaries of informality when helping someone. This discussion would arise especially when these limits were pushed. It was noticed that the new roles as community social workers at Kototori changed how the visitors saw these practitioners. The visitors saw the workers as more approachable and equal to them as human beings. There were situations where visitors were referring to workers more like good friends than practitioners. During the first year of Kototori, the two social work professionals were the only employees to represent the public social work institution. Since the second year, the days spent at the drop-in centre were divided among all the social instructors working at the immigrant social services. This solution connected the drop-in centre more closely to the statutory social work institution, and soon a shared responsibility developed. Nowadays when new employees start their work at the immigration services, they are immediately offered a shift at Kototori. Today social instructors and social workers get the opportunity to experience Kototori and its community social work environment as part of their professional development.

6.7  Discussion and Conclusion The development of the drop-in centre has demanded some rethinking about the nature of social services in the city of Tampere. Since the managerial turn, the main trend has been to concentrate public services and governance into the city centre. In this sense Kototori has been a notable exception to general city planning. Kototori developed into a multi-agency, low-threshold centre to serve residents in one local multicultural suburb. The new social frame found at Kototori was ‘informality within formality’. Adopting a broader perspective, this meant that the drop-in centre turned out to be an environment that helped deconstruct power relations between practitioners and visitors. The ability to be informal, to be a person, within a formal profession became a vital element in supporting equality and building trust. Informality was related to sharing power and responsibilities by working collectively together. Flexible and delicate structures at Kototori were created by emphasising the use of various shared elements:

6  Developing Social Work Competencies to Empower Challenging Communities…

• • • • • • • •

135

Physical and social space with a foyer and round tables Lively common social area, social café Minimised hierarchy Working together with shared knowledge Experimental culture as a way of working Practitioners as community members New terminology – speaking of visitors instead of clients or service users Relaxed atmosphere

Social work competencies were transformed in the process of collaborative learning and dialogical social development. As Goffman (1974) suggested, the actor status arises in a social context, and this makes it possible for the actor to grow and transform. Gradually, the reflective community approach led to the practice of mutually shared competences, changing the way professional expertise was used. The social work practitioners recognised four specific competencies which are needed at such a centre and discussed in detail above. According to Fook et al. (2000), it is procedural knowledge which is needed in new, uncertain and unpredictable situations. The competences mentioned above show that they are underpinned by know-how, i.e. procedural knowledge. The development of competencies demanded personal courage and self-efficacy and above all trusting that skills and resources will be found within the community. It demanded that the practitioners cope with challenging situations without knowing the final answer. Reflective collaboration with co-workers and visitors at the drop-in centre helped to find solutions. The empowerment of visitors occurred through working together and allowing them to adopt meaningful roles. The inspiring slogan was ‘Try it, ditch it, develop it’, which meant ideas could immediately be put into practice. The role of Kototori within the organisational structure could be described as being a friendly infiltrator of community social work. This makes it possible for workers to create change, from the inside, in the city’s social service organisation. That’s why it is essential that the drop-in centre is not operated by a third sector organisation, which is often the case with community projects in other European countries (Stepney 2018). Kototori’s importance for statutory social work can be seen in multiple ways and should not be underestimated. The drop-in centre helped to ease the long queues at the social services information desk in the city centre. Social workers soon noticed that they had more time for psychosocial assessments and general discussion during their appointments, because clients have already completed the paperwork at the drop-in centre. Kototori reflects the area of Hervanta and its residents, as it is based on the local needs of the area and its people. Kototori as it is currently could not easily be duplicated in other areas. According to the theory of diffusion of innovations, we have to compare the context and properties of Kototori with the other community context where the model might be replicated (Rogers 1962, 2003). Within the city of Tampere, a drop-in centre set up in another area might have turned out different. Throughout this process it was understood that a drop-in centre like Kototori had to

136

M. Leppänen et al.

be created jointly with the local community. Developing such a structure meant learning through experiences and interaction. The model underpinning Kototori is understanding the need to critically observe and creatively experiment through trial and error. Community social work requires committing to active and responsive relation-based practice. One of Kototori’s aims is to make social services more approachable, accessible and humane. Kototori offered a new arena within the city of Tampere’s social services. The laws regulating these services such as the Act on the Promotion of Immigrant Integration and the Social Welfare Act were redefined in interactions between visitors and social work professionals. Re-designing the given institutional reality into this new arena made it possible to create an alternative and more positive way of seeing service users. This meant giving individuals or more accurately seeing them in new roles, as visitors, residents and actors. Not only did Kototori offer new identities for service users, it offered possibilities for social work professionals to challenge and redefine their roles as supporters with more control over agency policy. By doing experimental work, the practitioners gained substantive knowledge about individual visitors, the community and its social activity. Recognising the inherent ability and potential of the community created new resources and opportunities for social work. Further, it confirmed that many needs are shared needs, and shared needs require shared effort and collective solutions. In order to fully work with the community, it is important to invest time in getting to know the community. Community social work also calls for social work practitioners to develop courage to challenge existing structures, especially when seeing the need for change. Also, in collaboration with language-skilled community advisors, practitioners acquired special contextual knowledge about the needs of visitors and their own communities. This developmental study outlines new knowledge about the competencies needed for implementing community social work and experimental work more generally. The professional transformation was reinforced by creating a ‘travelling competence’ that follows the social work practitioners wherever they work. It can readily be seen in their office-based statutory work in the immigrant social services. The transformation includes a broadened and deeper understanding concerning how to support an individual’s integration. The process is enriched and enhanced by providing tools and community resources, such as Kototori, to support the individual’s self-efficacy and ownership of their own life. The project has demonstrated the importance of relationships in social work and the inter-connectedness of people in the community irrespective of their status, class, age, ethnic origins and culture. Relationships are at the basis of empowerment, and, as the project has revealed, they were central to what was achieved at Kototori, through the development of trust, mutuality and meaningful collaboration. Community social work, and the vibrant experimental culture it promotes, brings clear benefits not only to the community but for professional practitioners too. It is an evidence-based, interesting and rewarding form of practice that contributes to ongoing professional development.

6  Developing Social Work Competencies to Empower Challenging Communities…

137

The 3-year project demanded resilience from both professionals and residents alike to demonstrate the positive outcomes of the community social work model. The extensive knowledge produced has demonstrated evidence of effectiveness that will hopefully influence managers and political decision-makers concerning the great need for the drop-in centre and value of community-based work. Practice research is important because the knowledge produced by academics, social workers and student researchers can help make the evidence visible and contribute to more effective and empowering services.

References Banks, S. (2012). Ethics and values in social work (4th ed.). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Dore, I. (2020). Social work on the edge: Not knowing, singularity and acceptance. European Journal of Social Work, 23(10), 56–67. https://doi.org/10.1080/13691457.2018.1463971. Dreyfus, H., & Dreyfus, S. (1986). Mind over machine: The power of human intuition and expertise in the era of the computer. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Fook, J., & Napier, L. (2000). From dilemma to breakthrough: Retheorising social work. In L. Napier & J. Fook (Eds.), Breakthroughs in practice. Theorising critical moments in social work (pp. 212–227). London: Whiting & Birch Ltd. Fook, J., Ryan, M., & Hawkins, L. (1997). Toward a theory of social work expertise. British Journal of Social Work, 27, 399–417. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.bjsw.a011220. Fook, J., Ryan, M., & Hawkins, L. (2000). Professional expertise. Practice, theory and education for working in uncertainty. London: Whiting & Birch Ltd.. Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall. Goffman, E. (1974). Frame analysis. An essay on the organisation of experience. London: Harper and Row. Gubrium, F. A., & Holstein, J. A. (1995). Biographical work and new ethnography. In R. Josselson & A. Lieblich (Eds.), The narrative of lives (Vol. 3, pp. 45–58). California: Sage Publications. Honneth, A. (1995). The struggle for recognition  – The moral grammar of social conflicts. Cambridge: Polity Press. Juhila, K., Mäkitalo, Å., & Noordegaard, M. (2013). Analysing social work communication. In C. Hall, K. Juhila, M. Matarese, & C. Van Nijnatten (Eds.), Analysing social work communication: Discourse in practice (pp. 9–24). London: Routledge. Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning. Experience as a source of learning and development. Englewood Cliffs: J.N. Prentice Hall. Lähteinen, S., Raitakari, S., Hänninen, K., Kaittila, A., Kekoni, T., Krok, S., & Skaffari, P. (2017). Social work education in Finland. Courses for competency. SOSNET julkaisuja 8. https://www. sosnet.fi/loader.aspx?id=43aacd5d-­7a96-­44b7-­8dcb-­62dcd7ea6d65. Accessed 27 Feb 2020. Leppänen, M., & Kiviranta, J. (2019). Kototorin tarina – Ideasta hyväksi käytännöksi [the story of Kototori  – From an idea to the good practice]. In T.  Kostiainen, K.  Popova, A.  Metteri, M.  Leppänen & M.  Harju (Eds.), Yhteisötyö kahdensuuntaisessa kotoutumisessa  – yhteisö, kohtaaminen ja osallisuus [Community work in two–way integration – community, encounter and participation] (pp.  33–47). https://trepo.tuni.fi/handle/10024/117569. Accessed 27 Feb 2020. Lipsky, M. (1980). Street-level bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the individual in public services. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Mezirow, J. (1991). Transformative dimensions of adult learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Muurinen, H. (2019a). Service-user participation in developing social services applying the experiment-­driven approach. European Journal of Social Work, 22(6), 961–973. https://doi. org/10.1080/13691457.2018.1461071.

138

M. Leppänen et al.

Muurinen. H. (2019b, September). Pragmatismi ja kokeileva lähestymistapa sosiaalityön tiedonmuodostuksessa. [Pragmatism and experimental approach in social work knowledge production]. Doctoral dissertation, University of Helsinki, Faculty of Social Sciences]. Helsinki: SOCCA. http://urn.fi/URN:ISBN:978-­952-­5616-­82-­8. Accessed 27 Feb 2020. O’Leary, P., Tsui, M., & Ruch, G. (2012). The boundaries of the social work relationship: Towards a connected, inclusive and dynamic conceptualization. The British Journal of Social Work, 43(1), 135–153. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjsw/bcr181. Payne, M. (2014). Modern social work theory (4th ed.). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Rogers, E. M. (1962). Diffusion of innovations. New York: Free Press. Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). New York: Free Press. Roivainen, I., Kostiainen, T., & Metteri, A. (2019). Yhteisösosiaalityötä muuttuvassa toimintaym-­ päristössä. [community social work in a changing environment.]. In A. Pohjola, T. Kemppainen, et  al. (Eds.), Yhteiskunnallisen asemansa ottava sosiaalityö [social work taking its societal position] (pp. 277–301). Tampere: Vastapaino. Schön, D. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New  York: Basic Books. Seikkula, J., & Arnkil, T. E. (2006). Dialogical meetings in social networks. London: Routledge. Short, E.  C. (1984). Competence reexamined. Educational Theory, 34(3), 201–207. https://doi. org/10.1111/j.1741-­5446.1984.50001.x. Stepney, P. (2014). Prevention in social work: The final frontier? Critical and Radical Social Work, 2(3), 305–320. https://doi.org/10.1332/204986014X14102610760936. Stepney, P. (2018). Community social work. In N. Thompson & P. Stepney (Eds.), Social work theory and methods: The essentials (pp. 227–239). New York: Routledge. Stepney, P. (2019). Foreword. In T. Kostiainen, K. Popova, A. Metteri, M. Leppänen, & M. Harju (Eds.), Yhteisötyö kahdensuuntaisessa kotoutumisessa  – yhteisö, kohtaaminen ja osallisuus [community work in two-way integration  – Community, encounter and participation] (pp. 8–11). https://trepo.tuni.fi/handle/10024/117569 Accessed 27 Feb 2020. Talentia, Union of professional social workers in Finland. (2019). https://www.talentia.fi/uutiset/ hyva-­kaytanto-­palkinto-­maahanmuuttajia-­auttavalle-­toimintamallille/. Accessed Aug 3, 2020. Tampere alueittain. 2018. [Districts of Tampere 2018.] https://public.tableau.com/profile/tampereen.kaupunki#!/vizhome/Tamperealueittain/Etusivu. Accessed 27 Feb 2020. Tampere University of Applied Sciences. (2020). TAMK student’s guide. Degree programme of social services.. http://opinto-­opas-­ops.tamk.fi/index.php/en/167/en/49596. Accessed 17 Feb 2020. Thompson, N. (2015). People Skills (4th ed.). London: Palgrave Macmillan. Thompson, N. (2016). The professional social worker: Meeting the challenge (2nd ed.). London: Palgrave Macmillan. Thompson, N., & Stepney, P. (2018). Social work theory and methods: The essentials. New York: Routledge. Turtiainen, K. (2018). Recognising forced migrants in transnational social work. International Work in Health and Social Care, 14(2), 186–198. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJMHSC-­11-­2016-­0042. Valve, K. (2013). A perspective on the exposure approach to pedagogy in community development work. In J. Porkka & M. Pentikäinen (Eds.) Community of the future. challenges and new approaches to community based social work and Diaconia from the CABLE approach (pp.  168–191). B reports 57. Diaconia University of Applied Sciences.. http://urn.fi/ URN:ISBN:978-952-493-190-8. Accessed 27 Feb 2020. Vilkka, H. (2006). Tutki ja havainnoi. [Study and observe]. Tammi: Helsinki. Vilkka, H. (2018). Havainnot ja havainnointimenetelmät tutkimuksessa [Observations and observation methods in research]. In R.  Valli (Ed.), Ikkunoita tutkimusmetodeihin [Windows to research methods]. Jyväskylä: PS-Kustannus.

Chapter 7

Accompaniment and Emergence: Social Work Community Practice with Resettled Refugees Odessa Gonzalez Benson and Charlotte Burnett

7.1  Introduction Resettled refugee communities in the United States, and other places of third-­ country resettlement, present as complex, dynamic, and diversified communities. Within the context of Western nations, communities of resettled refugees are often underserved, low income, vulnerable, and marginalized, particularly in the early phases of refugee groups’ arrival. Refugee communities in resettlement cities often lack services that are empowering, equitable, and linguistically, socially, and culturally appropriate, in key institutions such as those for health, nutrition, and schooling or education, for example. Meanwhile, services are often disjointed across multiple domains (Darrow 2015a) and limited in duration and eligibility for services due to policy stipulations (Darrow 2018, Gonzalez Benson and Panaggio Taccolini 2019). Social workers are key players in the resettlement policy practice domain in the United Sates (Popescu & Libal, 2018), specifically within resettlement agencies, those civil society or non-profit organizations that are federally funded to assist refugee communities that are mandated and specified in refugee policy. Scholars have examined professional social work practice in the US refugee resettlement setting, illustrating affordances and opportunities as well as challenges and limits to such practice (see Darrow 2015a, 2018; Gonzalez Benson and Panaggio Taccolini 2019; Trudeau 2008). As professionals, social workers are often employed in such O. Gonzalez Benson (*) University of Michigan School of Social Work and Detroit School of Urban Studies, Ann Arbor, MI, USA e-mail: [email protected] C. Burnett University of Michigan Dual Master’s Degree Program in Public Health and Social Work, Ann Arbor, MI, USA e-mail: [email protected]

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 A. Opačić (ed.), Practicing Social Work in Deprived Communities, European Social Work Education and Practice, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-65987-5_7

139

140

O. Gonzalez Benson and C. Burnett

refugee-serving organizations to provide direct clinical practice, conduct case management, and play managerial roles. However, refugee-serving social service organizations, specifically resettlement agencies (RAs) as institutionalized and formalized entities, don’t function in isolation. Resettled refugees often form grassroots, informal organizations that are locally based, aiming to assist refugees in their continued migration journey within places of resettlement. These refugee-run community organizations (RLOs) and their communities thus present as opportunity, means, and site for participatory social work practice with refugees. Indeed, social work practice with resettled refugees extends beyond professionalized service provision within institutionalized agencies and into the domain of community practice at the grassroots. Yet, such community practice with resettled refugees remains empirically lacking and thus undertheorized. Scholars and practitioners have yielded knowledge about social work practice with refugees and immigrants, informing direct practice with individuals and families as well as macro social work practice (Popescu & Libal, 2018). However, practice modalities and strategies with resettled refugees at the community level have garnered less attention. “There is a need for analysis and systematic learning” (Shemer and Agmon-Snir 2019, p.135), absent empirical data, and bodies of knowledge on models or case examples. Resettled refugee communities may be conceptualized as outside the bounds of what Holman (2015) calls a “simple community mode”, wherein “all relevant information is known, the situation is well understood, and there is a well-known procedure for action” (Holman 2015 in Shemer and Agmon-Snir 2019, p. 135). A simple community mode can be enacted when there is significant research on the population at hand and when best practices have been theorized and tested. Best practices for working with resettled refugees remains unknown and community practice must be flexible and responsive to community needs and challenges as they arise. As such, practice with resettled refugees warrants both academic attention and alternative, innovative approaches in practice. This chapter aims for a conceptual discussion of social work practice with marginalized refugee communities upon resettlement, drawing specifically from two concepts: community-based accompaniment (Wilkinson and D’Angelo 2019) and emergence-based approaches (Shemer and Agmon-Snir 2019). We argue that approaches to community practice with resettled refugees warrant two things specifically: (a) meaningful accompaniment that calls for a focus on the “power in mutual relationships, and… collectively responding with action against systems of oppression” (Wilkinson and D’Angelo 2019, p.152) and (b) commitments and processes towards innovation, creativity, and forward orientations by “developing an infrastructure that creates opportunities for emergence in the community” (Shemer and Agmon-Snir 2019, p. 133). These are strategies that are considered ‘alternative’ in their departure from conventional community-level interventions that are oriented to planning, rational analysis, and outcomes as foundations and priorities (Shemer and Agmon-Snir 2019). The first section provides background on the refugee resettlement institutional context in the United States, focusing on resettlement agencies (publicly funded

7  Accompaniment and Emergence: Social Work Community Practice with Resettled…

141

formal organizations that serve refugees) and on refugee-run community organizations, grassroots, informal organizations that are formed and run by refugee communities. Next, we discuss conceptual backgrounds on community-based accompaniment and emergence-based approaches. The third section illustrates how those might apply to community practice with resettled refugees. We close with a synthesizing discussion, incorporating thoughts on limitations and forward directions.

7.2  C  ontextual Background: Resettlement Agencies and Refugee-Run Community Organizations 7.2.1  US Resettlement Agencies In the United States, the structure of the refugee resettlement policy and service delivery is multifaceted, involving federal, state, and local government, as well as organizations in the private sector (Brick et al. 2010). The federal government via the Office of Refugee Resettlement (US ORR) provides a range of services and benefits to refugees who arrive in the country by contracting with resettlement agencies as organizations within the private sector (both for-profit and non-profit). Due to this devolution of responsibilities (Gonzalez Benson 2016), RAs play the central role in refugee resettlement (Nawyn 2006) while being held accountable for their performance and service quality on the ground (Darrow 2018, Gonzalez Benson and Panaggio Taccolini 2019). The refugee admission process occurs at the federal level, where the US Department of State (DOS) recommends a number for annual refugee admissions and the president determines and stipulates the final count (Brick et al. 2010). Those applying for refugee status must be vetted by the Department of Homeland Security, and once approved, they are assigned to one of the nine nationally based resettlement agencies (RAs) prior to entry. The refugees are then assigned to one of more than 300 local affiliates of RAs operating in states across the country. These local RA affiliates, however, are often not provided with adequate information on the clients’ backgrounds, such as educational and work history, prior to receiving them (Darrow 2015b). In these localities, social workers and other helping professionals provide orientation and basic needs (such as housing, schooling for children, public assistance) and also implement direct services to refugees (such as mental health services or counseling, case management) (Brick et  al. 2010, Nawyn 2006). Resettlement agencies use federal funding, as well as discretionary federal funding and supplementary resources from private donors and local funders, to financially support refugee services. This complex process implies that the local RAs do not control the flow and the number of refugee clients into their agencies, creating strategic, sustainable planning and efficient service provision (Darrow 2015b).

142

O. Gonzalez Benson and C. Burnett

Reception and Placement Programme (R&P) and Other Services  The R&P programme, implemented by RAs, is available to refugees for the first ninety days of their entry into the United States, providing the initial building blocks for transition into the United States. The local RAs are mandated to provide housing as initial basic assistance; resettlement workers seek and prepare housing that is decent, safe, and sanitary yet affordable, before the clients’ arrival. Upon arrival, resettlement workers conduct the initial welcome by escorting refugees from the airport to the apartment, giving them a tour of the place and basic public services and resources. Resettlement workers also act as ‘resource bookers’: they connect refugees to jobs, educational opportunities, social communities, and other resources through their networks and alleviate the tension when conflicts or misunderstandings occur (Darrow 2015a). Beyond basic needs such as housing and employment, most refugees face multiple barriers during the resettlement process, often caused by language and cultural differences and the US labour market’s demand that do not align with their past work experiences. Moreover, refugees manage their mental and emotional needs, often struggling with complex trauma and experiences of violence and hardship, and with the challenges of adjusting to a new society and system (Darrow 2015b). Services in multiple and complex domains of life are thus vital to refugee resettlement. Some of these services include ESL classes; special programmes for children, youth, women, seniors, and families; physical and mental health services; legal services; translation and interpretation services; and cultural orientation services. The availability, substantive content, scope, and range of these services differ from agency to agency and from locality to locality, and refugee services are often underfunded, thereby limiting capacity of social workers and other resettlement workers (Darrow 2015a). Moreover, services provided by RAs cannot go beyond time limits (maximum eight months) and eligibility requirements set by policy, thereby compromising long-term resettlement progress and outcomes (Nawyn 2006). Employment Services for Refugees as Policy Priority  The Refugee Act of 1980 solidified the current US refugee resettlement system and the relationship between the government and the RAs while determining refugee resettlement policies and programmes (Brown and Scribner 2014, Gonzalez Benson 2016). These policies and programmes place an emphasis on economic self-sufficiency through employment (Brown and Scribner 2014; Darrow 2015b; Gonzalez Benson 2016; Gonzalez Benson & Panaggio Taccolini 2019; Shutes 2011). ORR defines self-sufficiency as “earning a total family income at a level that enables a family unit to support itself without receipt of a cash assistance grant” (Office of Refugee Resettlement 2012). The refugees are provided with work permits and are expected to seek employment in the US labour market as soon as possible (Darrow 2015b). RAs are therefore responsible for ensuring that they implement the values embedded within refugee policy, such as welfare-to-work policy, and that newly arrived refugees meet employment regulations (Gonzalez Benson & Panaggio Taccolini 2019; Darrow 2015b). As a result, a large portion of federal funds for refugee resettlement goes

7  Accompaniment and Emergence: Social Work Community Practice with Resettled…

143

toward employment-related services, and the contracts are monitored based on select employment outcomes. To implement self-sufficiency as an aim of refugee policy, resettlement workers, including social workers, are thus employment specialists; their role is to prepare their clients for employment and assist them in seeking jobs (Darrow 2015b). Resettlement workers conduct individual meetings and offer consultation to the client, provide job application and resume writing sessions, organize job-related field trips, identify appropriate employers, refer to employment opportunities, and direct outreach and follow-up with employers (Darrow 2015b). Social workers and other helping professionals work within the institutional context while responding to the opportunities and limitations caused by it (Darrow 2015b, Trudeau 2008). Their commitments are inevitably in tension between ‘self-­ sufficiency’ as federal policy priority and the more complex needs of individuals, families, and communities they serve, balancing pressures from both ends. They abide and comply with federal policies while also seeking to serve and advocate for refugees in daily practice and interactions (Darrow 2018). ‘Self-sufficiency’ as the sole and narrowly defined policy aim has become problematized, because the resettlement system fails to provide necessary resources and services to capture broader objectives of refugee resettlement (Brown and Scribner 2014, Shutes 2011). Refugees’ integration comes not only with an economic component but also with education, housing, and health care as well as broader social and political dimensions (Ager and Strang 2008). Employment services alone do not adequately encompass quality services for refugee resettlement, and some call for a holistic practice approach that addresses the domains of psychosocial, linguistic, and cultural integration. Though these services (e.g. training programme, ESL classes, cultural programmes, mental health services, etc.) are often available at local RAs, they are often underfunded or underprovided due to the low priority given to them (Brown and Scribner 2014).

7.2.2  Refugee-Led Community Organizations (RLOs) Civil society organizations run by and for refugees themselves coalesce to provide communitarian mutual aid and social and cultural supports within refugee communities in countries of resettlement such as the United States (Lacroix et al. 2015). Such supports are central to both short-term adjustment and long-term integration of resettled refugees. Beyond providing supports within the social and cultural domains of refugees’ lives, RLOs also fill in gaps in public social services for refugees, gaps that are formed out of eligibility requirements, time limits, and policies that delimit rather than facilitate opportunities for refugees (Gonzalez-Benson 2020). RLOs are key institutions within their communities, but as organizations they remain marginalized in terms of both resources and legitimacy (Clarke 2014, Lacroix et al. 2015, Piacentini 2012). Many RLOs remain informal and unfunded,

144

O. Gonzalez Benson and C. Burnett

while those RLOs that do formalize are often sidelined by their larger, mainstream organizational counterparts in the non-profit sector. Strong civil societies within refugee communities provide safety nets and empowerment and means for addressing social immobility and the reproduction of structural inequalities. Contexts of reception for resettled refugees have been wrought with tension in recent years. While some local communities have been welcoming, there have been increased negative attitudes and perceptions of resettled refugees in many Western countries (Esses et al. 2017). Refugees have been politicized recently in the United States, perhaps most vocally and directly by the Trump Administration, who sought to ban Muslim refugees and halved resettlement admissions into the United States (Engel 2016). Refugees are perceived as threat and competition and as outsiders who cannot and should not be integrated within the identity and ethos of the national community (Esses et al. 2017). Nevertheless, efforts in cities and localities aim for sociocultural welcome and economic integration, via policies and programming (Weng and Choi 2019), as well as in everyday practice and simply recognizing the presence of refugees (Darling 2017). Social work interventions are thus crucial, given such socio-political context and an institutional structure that delimits opportunities for mobility and integration. In this chapter, we move towards such social work interventions with conceptual analysis and future orientations.

7.3  C  onceptual Background: Community-Based Accompaniment and Emergence-Based Approaches 7.3.1  Community-Based Accompaniment A community-based accompaniment (CBA) approach emphasizes relationship building with refugee community members and RLO organization leaders and prioritizes such relationship-building processes over outcomes (Wilkinson and D’Angelo 2019). As previously noted, this approach calls for a focus on the “power in mutual relationships”. By standing alongside RLO and refugee communities, social workers are able to leverage the privileges they hold as professional, institutional agents, by drawing attention to the systems that continue to oppress these groups (Wilkinson and D’Angelo 2019). In focusing on building mutual relationships, social workers enact respect for the dignity and worth of each individual within a community they are working to serve. As a result, they not only reduce further harm to a community, but they walk alongside a community building collective power to create radical change (Watkins 2015; Wilkinson and D’Angelo 2019). Rather than attempting to speak on behalf of marginalized communities, social workers strive to empower and facilitate participation of these communities (Mullally 2017, p. 302, Weil et al. 2013). Beyond a phenomenon restricted within service provision, accompaniment may also be viewed as reflecting the kinds of

7  Accompaniment and Emergence: Social Work Community Practice with Resettled…

145

care and sentiment that motivate and guide caregivers and family members who ‘accompany’ their loved ones (Wolff et  al. 2012). Such accompaniment includes help such as scheduling appointments, organizing and/or providing transportation, accompanying refugees to their physician visits, explaining symptoms and medical conditions to the physician, recording physician instructions, and asking questions. Beyond the logistical and practical assistance, accompaniment entails companionship and moral support. Community-based accompaniment requires trust, which comes from mutual and long-term relationships between groups and “commitment to a process that necessitates time and critical reflection” (Wilkinson and D’Angelo 2019, p. 155). Because of policy limitations and bureaucratic barriers such as those discussed above, social workers in our existing systems struggle to build relationships where power is shared among all parties. Additionally, social work and other helping professionals can take on a paternalistic role, which limits the autonomy of already marginalized communities (Mullally 2017). Acknowledging that “…people experiencing social problems or oppression must be the agents of their own change” (Mullally 2017, p.  293), CBA supports shared power, which can be achieved through sustained, mutual, and trusting relationships. These mutual relationships can also lead to greater cultural humility, rather than simply cultural competence (Finn 2016). By engaging in deep listening, action, and reflection, both social workers and community members gain greater trust and understanding in each other and the process (Finn 2016). Relationships between service recipients and staff members that foster dignity, mutuality, and respect can also combat discrimination in mainstream institutions (Sosa et al. 2018).

7.3.2  Emergence-Based Approach The emergence-based approach (EBA) diverges from conventional approaches which often focus on defining the ‘problem’ in need of social change, then planning and mapping out a process in which change will be achieved. These conventional approaches “emphasize rational analysis, planning and deriving desired outcomes” (Shemer and Agmon-Snir 2019, p. 133). An EBA, in contrast, is committed to innovative processes, creativity, and forward orientations. An EBA prioritizes the process as opposed to the outcome, similar to a CBA approach discussed above. Instead of focusing on reaching change-based outcomes, a practitioner utilizing an EBA must “encourage independent processes in the community” without offering solutions (Shemer and Agmon-Snir 2019, p. 135). Spontaneous emergence of actions and ideas from within the community is central. Also needed is the creation of infrastructure that enables opportunities for this type of emergence and allows for the possibilities of unplanned interactions. A practitioner can support emergence within a community by assisting a group in self-organizing, recognizing small changes as having large impacts, accepting the complexity of community processes, capitalizing on random opportunities, and leaning into the passion of community

146

O. Gonzalez Benson and C. Burnett

members (Shemer and Agmon-Snir 2019). A practitioner should seek out new and unexpected opportunities because they can lead to creative and inclusive solutions. By acting as a support through this process as opposed to a leader, the practitioner allows the community to have ownership over their own process. Infrastructure for an EBA can be created by combining it with a more traditional approach to form a framework in which to practice. This framework can lay out benchmarks and guidelines for defining success without stifling spontaneity, creativity, and emergence (Shemer and Agmon-Snir 2019; Wolf-Branigin 2009). The framework should allow for changes in direction, multiple community solutions, and flexibility within the practice. For instance, in a traditional framework that defines the need as ‘high school education’, there can emerge a subgroup of people who are passionate about tackling issues around math studies. Instead of stifling this development, an EBA core within this framework supports creative solutions to this community-initiated concern (Shemer and Agmon-Snir 2019). A more traditional outcome-based framework should never limit emerging processes, but should instead remain flexible and attentive to arising community needs. Communities that are complex are particularly suited for emergence-based approaches to community practice, when relevant data or information about the community is not known, when the community is not well-understood, and when there is no well-known, established procedure for action. Importantly, a ‘complex community’ is conceptualized as a community where systematic learning is often insufficient in gaining full understanding (Shemer and Agmon-Snir 2019, Wolf-­ Branigin 2009). Complex communities are defined by many interacting variables and dynamics that are quickly changing (Shemer and Agmon-Snir 2019, Wolf-­ Branigin 2009). Within such complexity, self-organizing processes and the ‘wisdom of the crowd’ can become effective and meaningful. Newly resettled refugee communities are posited as complex communities precisely, about which there is lack of data and understanding and with interrelated moving parts that encompass the cultural, social, economic, and political domains of life.

7.4  A  pplying Accompaniment and Emergence in Social Work with Resettled Refugees 7.4.1  R  e-envisioning Social Work Within the Resettlement Agency Community-based, emergence-based approaches can integrate with professional social work in the context of the resettlement agency, as well as other institutionalized refugee-serving organizations (RSOs). However, social work practice that embodies CBA and EBA necessitates a broader scope than that currently in practice. That is, while professionalized social workers in RAs have aims and priorities mandated by federal funding and policy, as discussed in sections above (Darrow

7  Accompaniment and Emergence: Social Work Community Practice with Resettled…

147

2015b; Gonzalez Benson & Panaggio Taccolini 2019), there yet remains room for alternative paths and for expanded paths, as informed and inspired by CBA and EBA. Indeed, Darrow (2018) conceptualized ‘administrative inclusion’ within RAs, referring to the ways through which social workers and other professionals serving refugees can use their discretion and capabilities as street-level workers for claimsmaking and for work that empowers and meaningfully supports resettled refugees. Such re-envisioning entails redefining and widening the scope of responsibilities of social workers in RAs and other RSOs. A traditional approach of ‘helping’ cannot bring about transformative change (Shemer and Agmon-Snir 2019). Instead, social workers walk alongside RLOs and refugee communities in solidarity in pursuit of collective action. Social workers who are professionally employed within RAs can conduct work with RLOs within regular work hours, going beyond conventional policy-oriented job responsibilities. New or expanded roles and tasks would include community outreach, co-facilitating workshops and support groups along with RLO leaders to assist many people with shared challenges. These groups could occur on an as-needed and ongoing basis as indicated by the RLO at either the site of the social service organization or a community site such as a church or RLOs’ meeting spaces. Aiming to acknowledge and deal with power in mutual relationships, social workers in RAs can conduct community outreach in an effort to engage in deep listening and to seek understanding of the RLOs they wish to collaborate with. Listening shifts power to an individual by normalizing their experience and allowing them to name their oppressions (Mullally 2017, p.  294). By listening to the strengths, concerns, and needs identified by RLOs, social workers can be dynamic and responsive, to better assist RCOs in creating change. These mutual relationships also foster respect and dignity for the RLOs and community members and aim to share power and capacity as opposed to enforcing traditional paternalistic approaches. Social workers in this role can build respect and trust among RLOs by allowing them to identify topics for workshops and support groups based on community needs. RLO leaders and community members can take co-facilitation and recruitment roles with the social worker taking a support role. In addition to sharing power, allowing RLO leaders to co-facilitate ensures cultural competence and appropriateness of workshops and support groups. Social work supervisors and managers in RAs thus have a key role to play. A visionary, reflective, ethical leadership style is a cornerstone in initiating and promoting changes within their organizations (Lawler and Bilson 2009; Wilson and Lau 2011). Such a leadership style departs from a rational, business model approach but engages more fully with relationality, complexity, and issues of power within organizations (Lawler and Bilson 2009). Social workers as strong leaders/managers can thus expand the conventional scope of work of agencies to include macro community practice and participatory approaches with refugees. Social work managers are key in providing greater support to the social workers engaging in this re-­ envisioned work on the ground. For example, a social worker whose job requires them to forge bonds with local RLOs allows supervisors to set expectations for what this work looks like. This, in turn, requires the supervisor to provide assistance to

148

O. Gonzalez Benson and C. Burnett

the social worker in the form of supervision, conflict management, and allocation of resources to the social worker as needed. Along with support for the social worker, integrating this work into the job description allows the social worker to utilize the resources of the social service organization, such as additional staff, meeting spaces, as well as printer and phone use. This type of organizational support can lead to less burnout among social workers who engage in work with RLOs. Less burnout and less turnover are beneficial for the relationship-building aspect between social workers and RLO community leaders and members using a CBA and EBA approach. Incorporating work with RLOs into the job description allows for greater transference of institutional knowledge for when there is job turnover. A change in the job description means that the next social worker who fills the position must continue to incorporate work with RLOs into their practice. Without this change in the job description, an individual social worker’s commitment to RLOs may cease to exist. CBA and EBA are iterative processes that involve actively listening, learning from the community and gaining indigenous knowledge, then collectively working towards institutional changes. This process takes time and requires trust and commitment of both the social worker and the RLO. If the social worker collaborating with RCOs is consistent, this allows for greater trust and relationship building between the two parties. Moreover, this allows sustainability over time, as these approaches and modalities become institutionalized and legitimized.

7.4.2  Expanding Social Work Outside the Resettlement Agency Outside of the domain of the resettlement agency, social workers can integrate accompaniment and emergence into practice in several ways, including (a) conducting advocacy; (b) forging innovative, alternative institutions by initiating or expanding non-profit organizations with the specific goal of working alongside RLOs; (c) personal paths of volunteerism and community service; (d) building social capital; and/or (e) research. 7.4.2.1  Advocacy In the United States, social workers can engage in advocacy efforts to show their support for resettling refugees in their communities and in the United States through social and legislative action (Mondros 2013, Toomey 2011). Ways that social workers can engage in advocacy include influencing public policy, fundraising and donating to immigrant and refugee rights organizations, and joining campaigns and organizations advocating for refugee rights. Social workers can influence public policy by meeting with their representatives to show their support for raising the refugee quota, increasing funding for RAs, increasing humanitarian aid to refugees globally, and opposing bills that discriminate against refugees based on religion.

7  Accompaniment and Emergence: Social Work Community Practice with Resettled…

149

Social workers can advocate for their state to sign a pro-refugee bill that bans an immigration registry that would categorize and track refugees and immigrants. Additionally, social workers can work to oppose anti-refugee bills in states that have implemented legislation negatively impacting refugees. In the US context, advocacy efforts can work to support ‘sanctuary city’ status, ensuring that local law enforcement will not cooperate with federal agencies to deport undocumented individuals (The Unitarian Universalist Service Committee n.d.). In addition to influencing public policy, social workers can lead fundraising efforts to make donations to organizations conducting advocacy efforts such as the Immigrant Rights Center, Refugee Council USA, and the Interfaith Immigration Coalition as relevant to the US context. Lastly, social workers can become involved in campaigns led by these types of organizations to bring awareness to injustices committed against refugee communities and by collectively taking action for change. 7.4.2.2  Creating Alternative Institutions Social workers in existing institutions oftentimes contribute to dominant practices that continue to exclude vulnerable populations from engaging fully in society. One way social workers as administrators and leaders can engage in accompanying practice is to start non-profit or expand existing non-profit organizations towards having a mission that includes at least partly partnering with RLOs for empowerment and capacity building. “Alternative services and programs are counter-systems to mainstream social agencies and can be used ultimately to develop a base from which larger social change can be eventually effected” (Mullally 2017, p. 332). For example, social workers can engage in consulting work with RLOs to provide grant writing services. This allows RLOs greater capacity to continue or expand upon the work they are already doing in their communities. In addition to providing consulting services, social workers can engage RLOs directly in capacity building by providing trainings and skill-building workshops so that RLO leaders can expand their skills. Such trainings could include engaging RLO leaders around programme development, programme evaluation, leadership, writing grants, and utilizing data management and tracking tools. For RAs looking to expand their organization to partner with RLOs, they can include RLO leaders in trainings at their site as well as provide RLO leaders with internships and on-the-job training. These types of opportunities allow RLO leaders to gain skills and knowledge about how to perform certain jobs within an organization. Additionally, these opportunities often compensate workers for their time and effort. Finally, RAs can incorporate RLOs into their grants as a way for the RLOs to get paid to continue implementing programmes for refugee communities. Writing RLOs into grants institutionalizes the work, limits duplication between RLOs and RAs, and allows for more culturally competent programme implementation. Creating opportunities for RAs and RLOs to work together allows them to engage in collective action (Mullally 2017, p. 333).

150

O. Gonzalez Benson and C. Burnett

7.4.2.3  Volunteerism or Community Service Social work is professional work, but it also entails an ‘embodiment’. That is, social work values are not contained solely within professional or workplace functions and roles as ‘social workers’, but they instead manifest holistically as embodied by social workers as ‘people’. As such, social workers involved with resettled refugee communities can find space in volunteerism or community service, outside the bounds of their workplace. Social workers who engage in volunteerism with RLOs or refugee communities can either become connected through RAs or local social service agencies that are already providing services to these groups. As an example, the RA Bethany Refugee Services, according to its website, provides information on how volunteers can offer their time and services to refugee families. They currently list a need for volunteers in sponsorship with their church, business, or volunteer organization to stock refugee apartments with necessities, to welcome refugees at the airport, and to provide English tutoring and cultural support. They also list a New Neighbor Program in which volunteers serve as a ‘cultural bridge’ to a refugee family through forging a friendship with the family for a minimum of 3 months. Additionally, the website requests a need for volunteers to serve as ESL tutors and provide refugees with transportation assistance. Volunteerism with CBA and EBA approaches may also be achieved through direct connection with RLOs or refugee communities. This direct approach is initiated without a specific goal for involvement by the volunteer, but instead with the intention of providing support, building relationships, listening, and seeking understanding. For instance, within the healthcare domain, refugees experience many barriers when navigating the healthcare system and greatly benefit from translation services, transportation assistance, healthcare systems navigation assistance, and listening supports (Gonzalez Benson et al. 2019). The accompaniment of a volunteer to serve as a patient advocate and friend during this process is one way for social work volunteers to positively impact refugee communities. 7.4.2.4  Community Relations as Neighbours or Social Capital The formation of even less formal relationships between social workers and refugees can increase social capital and social cohesion. Social capital refers to interpersonal relationships, emotional and social support, and shared resources between individuals that requires trust and reciprocity (Hanley et al. 2018), which is key for the successful resettlement of refugees (Elliott and Yusuf 2014). Relationships forged between social workers and members of the broader community can facilitate increased access to resources and information for refugees, as well as strengthen a sense of belongingness, connectedness, and safety (Elliott and Yusuf 2014). Social and cultural capital can be built through friendly conversational interactions at religious activities and institutions, neighbourhood groups or associations, employment or education courses, PTA meetings in schools, or frequenting businesses

7  Accompaniment and Emergence: Social Work Community Practice with Resettled…

151

owned by refugees. For instance, when refugees and local people engage in conversational interactions, they develop personal and trusting relationships. These personal relationships link refugees to extended social networks where local people share their knowledge of local resources and services. 7.4.2.5  Participatory Research Lastly, social workers can mobilize research capacity to work towards engaging RLOs and refugee communities in action research or community-based participatory research (CBPR), as approaches that empower these communities to work towards sustainable change. CBPR seeks to shift the power dynamics that inhibit traditional research–participant relationships through collective understanding and action (Betancourt et al. 2017). Researchers enlisting a CBPR approach respond to a community-identified need and respect community members and leaders as experts in their own experiences. Some of the core principles of CBPR include building upon strengths and resources within the community, facilitating equitable partnerships and power-sharing, capacity building among all partners, integrating research and action for the mutual benefit of all partners, involving partners in the dissemination process, and addressing issues of race, ethnicity, and social class (Israel et al. 2017). A study by Betancourt et al. (2017) exemplifies a CBPR approach wherein researchers partnered with a local Somali Bantu RRO. The academic RLO team jointly conducted a needs assessment of the surrounding Somali Bantu and Bhutanese refugee communities. For the needs assessment, research staff recruited both Somali Bantu and Bhutanese research assistants from the local refugee communities. RAs were trained by research staff on ethics, interviewing, and mixed methods data collection. This is a form of capacity building within the partnering community, as the research team is sharing their knowledge of research and data collection with local community members. Research participants were compensated for their time according to what was culturally appropriate, based on input from community leaders. Members from these communities were also part of the grant writing process for the research from the outset, as well as served on community advisory boards that provided continuous oversight and consultation with the research team to ensure the project was mutually beneficial to all parties. Once the data had been collected, it was reviewed by the community advisory boards as well as in focus groups of Somali Bantu and Bhutanese refugees to contextualize responses, to provide understanding for terms, and to provide feedback on English translations. Results of the needs assessment with Somali Bantu and Bhutanese refugee communities revealed economic and financial concerns, acculturative stressors, and mental health syndromes among youth. The research team enlisted the help of the refugee community members to disseminate the results of the research back to the RLOs as well as to local healthcare providers and the broader community.

152

O. Gonzalez Benson and C. Burnett

7.5  Concluding Discussion Accompaniment and emergence are thus considered in this chapter as ‘sensibilities’, for social work community practice with resettled refugees. As sensibilities, the two concepts propose a synthesizing or a taking together of values, ideologies, positionalities, and modalities of social workers as individuals, of social work as a profession, and of resettled refugee communities as particularized entities. That is, the two concepts reflect a sort of starting point and continuing point for thinking through community practice with refugees. Resettled refugee communities in localities and nations of resettlement, as underserved, marginalized communities, become sites for practice for professional social workers. Yet, such practice is here imagined and envisioned in terms of accompaniment rather than hierarchical and professionalized and in terms of emergence, rather than rationalized and prescriptive. With these sensibilities, social work practice thus warrants innovative and brave modalities, as social workers on the ground walk alongside fellow practitioners and refugee communities.

References Ager, A., & Strang, A. (2008). Understanding integration: A conceptual framework. Journal of Refugee Studies, 21(2), 166–191. https://doi.org/10.1093/jrs/fen016. Betancourt, T.  S., Newnham, E.  A., Birman, D., Lee, R., Ellis, B.  H., & Layne, C.  M. (2017). Comparing trauma exposure, mental health needs, and service utilization across clinical samples of refugee, immigrant, and U.S.-origin children. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 30(3), 209–218. https://doi.org/10.1002/jts.22186. Brick, K., Cushing-Savvi, A., Elshafie, S., Krill, A., Scanlon, M., & Stone, M. (2010). Refugee resettlement in the United States: An examination of challenges and proposed solutions. New York: Columbia University School of International and Public Affairs. Brown, A., & Scribner, T. (2014). Unfulfilled promises, future possibilities: The refugee resettlement system in the United States. Journal on Migration and Human Security, 2(2),101–120. Clarke, J. (2014). Beyond social capital: A capability approach to understanding RCOs and other providers for ‘hard to reach’ groups. International Journal of Migration, Health and Social Care, 10(2), 61–72. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJMHSC-­11-­2013-­0039. Darling, J. (2017). Forced migration and the city: Irregularity, informality, and the politics of presence. Progress in Human Geography, 41(2), 178–198. https://doi. org/10.1177/0309132516629004. Darrow, J. (2015a). The (re)construction of the U.S. Department of State’s reception and placement program by refugee resettlement agencies. Journal of the Society for Social Work and Research, 6(1), 91–119. https://doi.org/10.1086/680341. Darrow, J. (2015b). Getting refugees to work: A street-level perspective of refugee resettlement policy. Refugee Survey Quarterly, 34(2), 78–106. https://doi.org/10.1093/rsq/hdv002. Darrow, J. (2018). Administrative Indentureship and administrative inclusion: Structured limits and potential opportunities for refugee client inclusion in resettlement policy implementation. Social Service Review, 92(1), 36–68. https://doi.org/10.1086/697039. Elliott, S., & Yusuf, I. (2014). ‘Yes, we can; but together’: Social capital and refugee resettlement. Kotuitui: New Zealand Journal of Social Sciences Online, 9(2), 101–110. https://doi. org/10.1080/1177083X.2014.951662.

7  Accompaniment and Emergence: Social Work Community Practice with Resettled…

153

Engel, P. (2016). Trump on Syrian refugees: ‘Lock your doors, folks’. Business Insider. http:// www.businessinsider.com/trump-­syrian-­refugees-­isis-­2016-­4. Accessed 31 Dec 2019. Esses, V., Hamilton, L., & Gaucher, D. (2017). The global refugee crisis: Empirical evidence and policy implications for improving public attitudes and facilitating refugee resettlement. Social Issues and Policy Review, 11(1), 78–123. https://doi.org/10.1111/sipr.12028. Finn, J. (2016). Just practice: A social justice approach to social work. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Gonzalez Benson, O. (2016). Refugee resettlement policy in an era of neoliberalization: A policy discourse analysis of the refugee act of 1980. Social Service Review, 90(3), 515–549. https:// doi.org/10.1086/688613. Gonzalez Benson, O., & Panaggio Taccolini, A. (2019). “Work is worship” in refugee policy: Diminution, deindividualization, and valuation in policy implementation. Social Service Review, 93(1), 26–54. https://doi.org/10.1086/702182. Gonzalez Benson, O., Pimentel Walker, A. P., Yoshihama, M., Burnett, C., & Asadi, L. (2019). A framework for ancillary health services provided by refugee and immigrant-run CBOs: Language assistance, systems navigation and hands on support. Journal of Community Medicine and Health Education, 9(5), 665. Gonzalez-Benson, O. (2020). Welfare support activities of grassroots refugee-run community organizations: A reframing. Journal of Community Practice, 28(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/1 0.1080/10705422.2020.1716427. Hanley, J., Al Mhamied, A., Cleveland, J., Hajjar, O., Hassan, G., Ives, N., Khyar, R., & Hynie, M. (2018). The social networks, social support and social capital of Syrian refugees privately sponsored to settle in Montreal: Indications for employment and housing during their early experiences of integration. Canadian Ethnic Studies, 50(2), 123–148. https://doi.org/10.1353/ ces.2018.0018. Holman, P. (2015). Complexity, self-organizations, and emergence. In G. R. Bushe & R. J. Marshak (Eds.), Dialogic organization development: The theory and practice of transformational change (pp. 123–159). Oakland: Berrett-Koehler. Israel, B., et al. (2017). Critical issues in developing and following CBPR principles. In M. Minkler & N. Wallerstein (Eds.), Community-based participatory research for health (pp. 47–62). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Lacroix, M., Baffoe, M., & Liguori, M. (2015). Refugee community organizations in Canada: From the margins to mainstream? A challenge and opportunity for social workers. International Journal of Social Welfare, 24(1), 62–72. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijsw.12110. Lawler, J., & Bilson, A. (2009). Social work management and leadership: Managing complexity with creativity. New York: Routledge. Mondros, J. (2013). Political, social, and legislative action. In M. Weil, M. Reisch, & M. Ohmer (Eds.), The handbook of community practice (2nd ed., pp. 345–360). Thousand Oaks: Sage. Mullally, B. (2017). The new structural social work: Ideology, theory, practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Nawyn, S. J. (2006). Faith, ethnicity, and culture in refugee resettlement. American Behavioral Scientist, 49(11), 1509–1527. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764206288462. Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR). (2012). Title 45: Public Welfare, Part 400—Refugee resettlement program. Subpart a—introduction. §400.2 definitions. https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-­bin/ text-­idx?SID=456748052215db7627b48240aa7a0e2e&mc=true&node=se45.2.400_12&rgn= div8 Accessed April 4, 2020. Popescu, M. & Libal, K. (2018). Social work with migrants and refugees. Advances in Social Work, 18(3). Piacentini, T. (2012). Moving beyond ‘Refugeeness’: Problematising the ‘Refugee Community Organisation. (Working Paper 85). Birmingham: Third Sector Research Centre. Shemer, O., & Agmon-Snir, H. (2019). The emergence of the emergence-based approach in community practice. Journal of Community Practice, 27(2), 133–150. https://doi.org/10.108 0/10705422.2019.1616345.

154

O. Gonzalez Benson and C. Burnett

Shutes, I. (2011). Welfare-to-work and the responsiveness of employment providers to the needs of refugees. Journal of Social Policy, 40(3), 557–574. https://doi.org/10.1017/ S0047279410000711. Sosa, L., Diaz, S., & Hernandez, R. (2018). Accompaniment in a Mexican immigrant community: Conceptualization and identification of psychosocial outcomes. Journal of Religion & Spirituality in Social Work: Social Thought, 38(1), 21–42. https://doi.org/10.1080/1542643 2.2018.1533440. The Unitarian Universalist Service Committee (n.d.) Advocate for refugee rights and integration. https://www.uusc.org/resources/tools-­for-­taking-­action/humanitarian-­crises-­resources/ refugee-­toolkit/advocacy/. Accessed 31 Dec 2019. Toomey, A. H. (2011). Empowerment and disempowerment in community development practice: Eight roles practitioners play. Community Development Journal, 46(2), 181–195. https://doi. org/10.1093/cdj/bsp060. Trudeau, D. (2008). Junior partner or empowered community? The role of non-profit social service providers amidst state restructuring in the U.S. Urban Studies, 45(13), 2805–2827. https://doi. org/10.1177/0042098008098207. Watkins, M. (2015). Psychosocial accompaniment. Journal of Social and Political Psychology, 3(1), 324–341. https://doi.org/10.5964/jspp.v3i1.103. Weil, M. O., Gamble, D. N., & Ohmer, M. L. (2013). Evolution, models, and the changing context of community practice. In M. O. Weil, M. Reisch, & M. L. Ohmer (Eds.), The handbook of community practice (pp. 167–193). Thousand Oaks: Sage. Weng, S., & Choi, S. (2019). Examining refugee integration: Perspective of community members. Journal of Refugee Studies, fez049. https://doi.org/10.1093/jrs/fez049. Wilkinson, M., & D’Angelo, A. (2019). Community-based accompaniment & social work—A complementary approach to social action. Journal of Community Practice, 27(2), 151–167. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705422.2019.1616641. Wilson, S., & Lau, B. (2011). Preparing tomorrow’s leaders and administrators: Evaluating a course in social work management. Administration in Social Work, 35(3), 324–342. https://doi. org/10.1080/03643107.2011.575347. Wolf-Branigin, M. (2009). Applying complexity and emergence in social work education. Social Work Education, 28(2), 115–127. https://doi.org/10.1080/02615470802028090. Wolff, J. L., Boyd, C. M., Gitlin, L. N., Bruce, M. L., & Roter, D. L. (2012). Going it together: Persistence of older adults’ accompaniment to physician visits by a family companion. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 60(1), 106–112. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-­5415.2011 .03770.x.

Chapter 8

Enhancing Poverty Reduction Through Community Work in Low-Resourced Areas in Africa Prudence Mafa, Frans Koketso Matlakala, Vincent Mabvurira, and Jabulani Calvin Makhubele

8.1  Introduction Many nations in Africa face severe social upheaval threatening the social fabric. The major threats to humanity are poverty, HIV/AIDS, poor governance, famine, inequality, diseases, protracted wars and civil unrest, high crime rates and natural disasters, which are just some of the impediments to development. Most Africans still live in abject poverty with the majority being underfed, underhoused, illiterate, and vulnerable in spite of both private and public social investments. To that end, social work has a critical role in contributing to poverty eradication and creating equitable, fair, and just societies. Social work seeks to primarily enhance and promote social development goals which balance social change and economic development. The social work profession is key to ensuring successful realization of sustainable development goals as they assist in effective harnessing and harmonizing educational, socioeconomic, and cultural opportunities in underdeveloped areas. The history of rural communities of Africa is one of land dispossession, forced removals, and immiseration. This chapter focuses specifically on conceptualizing a theoretical framework on poverty reduction based on community work rooted in African realities and a sociocultural orientation of communities.

P. Mafa · V. Mabvurira · J. C. Makhubele (*) Department of Social Work, University of Limpopo, Pietersburg, South Africa e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected] F. K. Matlakala Lifestyle Diseases Research Entity, North West University, Mafikeng, South Africa e-mail: [email protected]

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 A. Opačić (ed.), Practicing Social Work in Deprived Communities, European Social Work Education and Practice, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-65987-5_8

155

156

P. Mafa et al.

8.2  Social Work and Development Social work has a crucial role in development as well as eradicating poverty and its impacts. According to the United Nations as cited by Patel (2005, p.  1), “South Africa is amongst the fewer countries that have adopted the developmental social welfare approach in line with the United Nations World Declaration on Social Development”. However, this adoption has been characterized by inequalities, discrimination, and unequal distribution of resources due to colonial forces. Accordingly, Africans in rural areas have had to rely on different stakeholders, such as religious philanthropists and the private sector, to assist in addressing poverty. After the apartheid era, South Africa adopted the White Paper for Social Welfare to address imbalances created by apartheid and the colonial system. Nonetheless, even after the adoption of the White Paper for Social Welfare, an unequal distribution of resources and services still exists, especially in African rural areas. As a result of inequalities, the caring profession of social work encounters a clientele mainly grappling with poverty. Outrageous poverty is the eventual outcome of instability that undermines the capacity of individuals, families, and community rights as enshrined in the International Bill of Human Rights. In line with the core aspects of social development in developing countries, poverty falls into three categories, namely, income poverty, human development poverty, and social exclusion (Mabughi and Selim 2006). Prolonged income poverty (absolute poverty) results in homelessness, food insecurity, and poor or lack of healthcare services. Development poverty is characterized by feelings of helplessness when one is unable to live their desired life due to poor health, inadequate education system, lack of access to information, and unemployment. Social exclusion results in isolation, alienation, and a hidden existence which infringes on the human dignity of individuals. To that end, education and training are the main tools that can lead communities out of poverty in developing and developed countries. The effects of poverty are not equally felt among community members. Vulnerable groups, mainly women and children, are first-hand victims of poverty. For instance, school children face malnutrition, with Bresnahan and Tanumihardjo (2014) reporting that half of the deaths of preschoolers are caused by malnutrition. Women are poverty stricken due to oppressive patriarchal systems and compounded by the fact that women bear the primary responsibility of caring for children, the elderly, and persons living with disabilities. Social workers have been on the forefront of activities addressing poverty. They have used various methods of intervention, starting from case work to group work and community work to engage people and ultimately help them. The key strategic plan in eradicating poverty requires the involvement of individuals, families, and communities (Zastrow 2017). Social workers have been planning and implementing projects aimed at eradicating or addressing poverty using the bottom-up approach. The bottom-up approach entails placing community members at the centre of community projects and getting them involved in all community engagement processes. Roe et al. (2009) noted that community-based approaches focused on local people

8  Enhancing Poverty Reduction Through Community Work in Low-Resourced…

157

achieved desired results in natural resource management in several African countries including Zimbabwe, Kenya, Tanzania Ghana, Cameron, and Namibia. In their strategic plan to eradicate poverty, social workers collaborate with civil society and the private sector to develop projects that have the potential of significantly reducing the prevalence of poverty in communities. They do so while playing the role of educator, advocate, activist, broker, and other social worker roles deemed proper in particular circumstances. Notably, the inclusion of different stakeholders and community members has helped maintain sustainability of community projects in the absence of social workers. Enactment of the Natives Land Act of 1913, aimed at land dispossession from native blacks (African), resulted in excluding the majority of people in South Africa. Subsequently, the Group Areas Act 41 of 1950 stipulated the separation of commercial and residential segments of property in both developed (urban) and developing (rural) areas for each race and ethnic group. White people and Africans were not allowed to live together, let alone allowing Africans to own businesses or land. These draconian legislations were meant to oppress the black majority and finally led to the establishment of homelands which served as labour reserves for urban and mining areas. Africans were subjected to brutal, horribly forced removals from areas which were deemed rich in rainfall, minerals, and other natural resources, and the African people were grouped on the basis of their language. There were the homelands for the Zulus, Xhosas, Swazis, Venda, Ndebele, Tsonga/Shangaan, South Sothos, Tswanas and Northern Sothos. White South Africans, that is, those speaking English and Afrikaans, remained the privileged groups. The provision of basic services for these diverse cultural groups was of a poor standard or non-existent. Welfare services were segregated as well, with schools and hospitals for each ethnic group. Housing and road infrastructure were also different, depending on the ethnic group. Worst of all, the education system for Africans was meant to train them to become labourers and job seekers, not critical thinkers and job creators. Certain occupations and professions were reserved for whites, whereas Africans were most trained to become educators, nurses, police officers, and clerks. In a nutshell, the Natives Land Act and Group Areas Act gave birth to conditions which the majority of Africans are still experiencing.

8.3  A  Theoretical Framework Rooted in African Realities and the Sociocultural Orientation of Communities 8.3.1  Communalism as a Positive Attribute for Community Work Since the beginning of time, the idea of working as a community has always existed in Africa. Hunter gatherers who were pastoral tribes in precolonial Africa lived and worked in small groups for various reasons which included ensuring their security

158

P. Mafa et al.

and also pulled their resources together to ensure gregariousness and sense of Ubuntu. According to Midgely (1997), tribal and mutual aid societies have always existed in Africa, definitely prior to the establishment of statutory welfare systems. Makhubele (2008) notes that indigenous community groups are critical for achieving social development. Community growth and development require effective exploitation, management, and recognition of indigenous structures while respecting their cultural value (Makhubele 2008). Schiele (2000) in Makhubele (2008) argues that the African economic concept of profit implies a surplus only after human needs of an entire community have been addressed. Several arrangements for community work existed in precolonial Africa, some of which exist to this day. Examples are tsima in South Africa, nhimbe and zunde ramambo in Zimbabwe, umuganda in Rwanda, harambe in Kenya, and ujamaa in Tanzania. Tsima refers to communal or cooperative work and responsibility for one another. It is a community system where members of the community come together and help each other for free depending on one’s need. It is anchored on the philosophy of Ubuntu and reciprocity. Tsima encourages cooperative effort and a collective commitment to improvement for both individuals and society. It encourages respect for every member of the community. The combined efforts of people in a community enable them to achieve results which individual families could not achieve alone (Makhubele 2008). According to Makhubele (2008), the basic dignity of each individual is expressed through his or her capacity to be involved in reciprocally exchanging help. Indigenous African people are highly gregarious with a strong sense of belonging to a particular group but within the context of a larger society. Zunde ramambo is a Shona communal method of growing and storing grain together for later use by disadvantaged members of the community. The grain is mainly used to feed the elderly, orphans, chronically ill, and people with disabilities. Though the practice is still in existence, Ringson (2017) argued that it was dismantled by colonialism. Umuganda is a Kinyarwanda (Rwandan vernacular language) word for community work. It is a traditional practice for working together to solve social and economic problems for mutual benefit. The government of Rwanda adopted the umuganda practice to build post-genocide Rwanda. According to Uwimbabazi (2012), it is currently compulsory for everyone and takes place on the last Saturday of each month. It is used as a platform to implement government programmes on poverty reduction and reconciliation. Ujamaa is a Swahili word for traditional kinship communalism. The concept of ujamaa was popularized by Julius Nyerere when he transformed it into a policy with a strong emphasis on state-­ controlled collective production. Harambe is a Swahili word meaning “all pull together”. The harambe concept has been used as a motto and policy for community development in Kenya. As argued by Mungai (2015), for Africans to cope with modern challenges, it is important that they seek strength in the foundations of their indigenous cultures. African cultures value collectivity, reciprocity, spirituality, and interconnectedness (Mabvurira 2016; Mabvurira and Makhubele 2014; Mungai 2015). The African collective finger theory (Mbigi 1997) postulates that one finger cannot kill an aphid— implying that there is social facilitation in working as a group. The theory is based

8  Enhancing Poverty Reduction Through Community Work in Low-Resourced…

159

on five social values of African collective life which are survival, compassion, solidarity spirit, respect, and dignity. Individual persons act together in a collective manner in order to achieve a common goal. African cultures generally discourage individualism and encourage working together for the good of the society. The importance of the communal nature of African life was supported by Mungai (2015, p. 67) who notes that “people who see themselves as connected in a collective are also likely to care for other individuals who they perceive as part of their collective self”. Harm to an individual is seen as harm to the entire community, hence the African adage umuntu ngumuntu ngabantu, which literally means a person is a person through others. Self-help is a practice found among Africans wherever they live (Mungai 2015). Mutual aid still exists among Africans. Writing in the context of Nigeria, Ering et  al. (2014) argued that development activities have been part of Nigeria’s cultural heritage. Ering and Akpan (2012), including Ebong cited in Ering et  al. (2014), have both maintained that Nigerian rural communities before the advent of colonization engaged in various forms of community self-help schemes such as construction of village moats, shrines, village squares, markets, and a host of other activities. Traditional community work arrangements conform very well to modern community social work approaches for community development. In most circumstances, community leaders or respected persons in the community assume leadership roles in these arrangements. A community social worker can work well within these arrangements to solve community problems such as hunger and starvation, water and sanitation, and building infrastructure. Social workers can also take advantage of community gatherings to educate community members on various topics as the need arises.

8.4  C  ommunity Work Practice Models and Challenges of Community Engagement When engaging with the local people, social workers as professionals utilise the knowledge and skills they have acquired both in training and practice. Of particular importance in community work is the use of community work models and legislation relevant to the practice of community work. Weyers (2011) identifies the models as community development, community education, social action, social planning, and social marketing.

8.4.1  Models of Community Work The concept of community work is slippery, intricate, ideological, and multifaceted covering a wide range of social phenomena (Pradeep and Sathyamurthi 2017). Pawar (2014) notes that in general terms, social work practice in local communities

160

P. Mafa et al.

takes place at the local level and is ideally initiated by local people. For Pradeep and Sathyamurthi (2017), community social work signifies the practice of professional social work within communities as the target population or setting requiring intervention. Local people should actively seek solutions to their problems. Political engagement is seen as critical for meaningful community practice and is founded on inclusion of the excluded, exploited, and oppressed groups (Pawar 2014). At times, practitioners in training cannot distinguish between community work and community development. The terms community work and community development are often confused, but some scholars have made a very clear distinction. Community work is defined as: …the method of social work that consists of the various processes and helping acts of the social worker that are targeted at the community system, as well as its sub-systems and certain external systems, with the purpose of bringing about required social change with the help of especially community development, social planning, community education, social marketing and social action as practice models. (Weyers 2011, p. 9)

Whereas Engelbrecht (2005, p. 4) defines community development as: …an umbrella concept to refer to the conscious efforts of change agents that are aimed at realizing objectives within various spheres of community life. The concept community work is used in a narrower sense and refers specifically to the method used by social workers to bring about changes that are particularly beneficial to the social sphere of community life.

8.4.1.1  Community Development Community development focuses on “mutual support, self-help and promotion of a collective action to bring a community’s preferences to the attention of political decision-makers” (Thomas 1983, p. 108). On the same note, Zastrow (1989) saw community development as a local development model used by community members to develop and build their own community. Central to Zastrow’s definition of community development is the element of local community members. Hence, Weyers (2011) found that lack of commitment and involvement from community members due to external forces hinders development of local people and their community. In Weyers’ (2011) view, community members are the main actors and central to development and the elimination of social ills that they experience in their community. In essence, community projects that are developed to eradicate poverty should be initiated by community members and social workers to serve as guides or consultants. The community development model uses the bottom-up approach in developing projects for the eradication of social ills; thus projects developed using the bottom­up approach are sustainable given that community members are the main actors. The above sentiments are corroborated by Engelbrecht (2005) who asserts that the community development model requires effort from community members to realise their full objectives within the different aspects of community life.

8  Enhancing Poverty Reduction Through Community Work in Low-Resourced…

161

The community development model is based on the perception that community members can develop themselves and that they are best positioned to eliminate obstacles that might hinder their ability to develop (Weyers 2011). However, their participation in community development projects is hindered by a lack of resources, training, and illiteracy. Moreover, as already mentioned, the efforts of community members to develop their own community are often challenged by external forces, which makes them feel powerless and worthless. As such, social workers collaborate with community members to help them overcome the internal and external forces which prevent them from improving their lives and community. Community Development Challenges Community development in deprived rural areas is hindered by corruption, poor managerial expertise, and poor implementation of public policies (Khosa 2000, Shava and Thakhuthi 2016). In line with this argument, on account of influence from political leaders, community development projects are run by family members of influential community members who lack managerial expertise. Furthermore, lack of proper infrastructure, such as poor railways and roads, becomes a stumbling block for community members to receive and send goods that could otherwise assist in eradicating poverty (Republic of South Africa 2013). In deprived communities, evidence has shown that women participate in poverty eradication projects such as farming. However, they are discouraged or disadvantaged to maximize their projects due to inadequate access to information and their technology illiteracy levels. As evidence of this situation, Shava and Thakhuthi (2016) assert that barriers to community development among women are due to limited education and the noninvolvement of women in information communications technology (ICT). 8.4.1.2  Community Education According to Popple (1995, p. 63), the community education model is described as “a significant attempt to redirect educational policy and practice in ways which bring education and community into a closer and more equal relationship”. Community education roots can be traced from schools; however, as a practitioner, one should not decouple indigenous knowledge from scientific knowledge. The pillar of community work is the engagement of community members in project development to achieve sustainable development. The community education model propounds that social ills arising in communities are a result of illiteracy or lack of education and knowledge (Weyers 2001). As such, the social worker has to assume the role of educator in order to impart knowledge to community members. Knowledge can change attitudes and perceptions of community members and their behaviour towards social ills (Weyers 2001). The community education model is therefore widely used in South Africa (Engelbrecht 2005) as it is closely linked to development. Basically, education or knowledge imparted to community members

162

P. Mafa et al.

is central to community development. Essentially, community members can use their skills and knowledge learned from social workers to develop projects aimed at ameliorating poverty. This is due to the fact that the community education model is based on the perception that socialization of community members has the potential to yield effectiveness in their social functioning (Weyers 2011). The goal of the community education model is to empower community members by removing or eliminating ignorance and empowering individuals, groups, and communities with the knowledge to improve their livelihood. According to Homan (2004), community education is a model used by social workers to bring matters that affect the community members to the table and prepare community members to utilize their knowledge in addressing challenges that affect them. However, Engelbrecht (2005) and Homan (2004) both acknowledged that possessing knowledge of social ills does not always dictate whether an action will be taken. Basically, a knowledge of poverty that social workers possess does not mean an action will be taken to eradicate poverty without the involvement of community members. Community members should, therefore, equally be involved in programme development to avoid getting involved in programmes they do not deem beneficial. Then again, community education model affords community members an opportunity to authenticate their experiences, cultures, and values. This notion is based on the fact that when social workers use the education model to eradicate poverty and promote sustainable development, indigenous knowledge should be embraced. This was also noted by Engelbrecht (2005) who propounded a correlation between education and the culture of community members. Community education is further seen as a tool used to equip community members with useful information, insight, and skills to function at their maximum level. When community members acquire new skills, they are able to improve their standard of living. The social worker is also able to share knowledge and skills at different levels such as the micro, mezzo, and macro levels. Moreover, the community educational model enhances potential growth within the population and society (Weyers 2011). The knowledge imparted by social workers has the potential to encourage community members to initiate sustainable projects to address their socioeconomic status, especially in rural areas. In essence, social workers impart knowledge to community members to ensure that community projects that they have developed to eradicate poverty are sustained and maintained. Moreover, social workers as underscored by Sheafor and Horejsi (2012) can also assume the role of educators to teach community members how to adapt to the conditions that negatively affect them in maintaining or sustaining a project. Using the Education Model to Address Existing Resources in Deprived Communities Communities are presented with resources that community workers can use to empower community members. As already indicated, the role of community education is to bring awareness to community members on ways of improving

8  Enhancing Poverty Reduction Through Community Work in Low-Resourced…

163

community livelihood while community education can take place through different organizations. The most notable structure that is used in a community to offer education includes schools and community centres (Gojová and Gojová 2008). Within these types of organizations, social workers are able to use the respective facilities to educate community members concerning projects designed to eradicate poverty. This model is ideal in assisting women who lack access to information and technology; the social worker assumes the role of teacher to educate community members in optimizing projects. This reaffirms earlier sentiments shared by Weyers (2011) who postulated that community education offers community members skills to address challenges and cope with problems stemming from the community. Accordingly, the community education model is used to change a negative attitude that community members might possess by providing community members with the skills and resources to rise above challenges. In terms of community work, social workers impart community members with knowledge and skills to develop community projects that may benefit the community and its members. 8.4.1.3  Social Action The social action model is used to alter or make changes in organizational and/or institutional policies (Thomas 1983). On the same subject, Popple (1995) asserts that the social action model incites conflict and directs action for the purpose of negotiating with power holders. This model is most often initiated by community members when at unease with their situation. Most projects that community members develop in rural communities require water given that rural communities have subsistence economies and use commercial farming to improve their socioeconomic status. However, as a scarce resource, insufficient water tends to hinder such development. Based on this model, community members usually take action against policymakers in order to obtain sufficient water which is often the duty of government. As Ahmed and Pretorius-Heuchert (2001) noted, social workers assume the roles of mobiliser and activist to empower disadvantaged individuals. Hence, social action is seen as a model focusing more on control than on issues, is conflictual rather than non-conflictual in nature, and, for the most part, is planned for realizing changes in social structures or legislations that affect individuals (Weyers 2011). Challenges Connected with Power Relations Within Poor Local Communities In addressing power relations in terms of social action model, Wood (2003) advocated an anthropological insight. His line of thought is that poverty is experienced differently across different categories with respect to demographics. For instance, Harriss-White (2003) asserts that people living with disabilities lack political influence in issues relating to the environment in which they live. Equally, in deprived rural communities, community members living with disabilities and the elderly are often forced to walk long distances to access health services. This is contrary to

164

P. Mafa et al.

those living in urban areas and those who can afford private doctors for their families. These differences in power relations and social classes mean that social workers should advocate for the equal distribution of social services to recipients. The social action model implies that social workers liaising with community members should challenge barriers that hinder development of the respective communities posed by public legislation that tends to favour the haves rather than the have nots. Moreover, small businesses belonging to deprived community members receive no recognition from the government, and, as a result, for instance, during a pandemic, community members are not able to have other means or sources of income. 8.4.1.4  Social Planning The social planning model is based on the view that individuals are prone to experiencing social ills in their lifetime and need therapeutic services to overcome them (Weyers 2011) Social workers are therefore at the forefront of eliminating these ills based on their expertise and an awareness that community members cannot fully participate in community work projects if troubled or experiencing challenges. Therefore, social workers have a mandate to minimize these social ills and optimize community participation. Weyers (2011) further expounds that the objective of the social planning model is to change the immediate environment by providing services that community members can use to address social ills. However, the shortfall of the social planning model is that it undermines the capabilities of community members in addressing their own social ills. It assumes that experts are the only people who can assist community members to dealing with their pathologies. Unlike community development which adopts a bottom-up approach, the social planning model relies on the top-down approach. It brings in experts to assist community members in addressing their own social ills. This affirms an earlier study conducted by Gojová and Gojová (2008), who pointed out that the social planning model requires an expert making decisions on behalf of community members based on research or data collected from the community. Availability of Services Particularly for Deprived Local Communities As mentioned above, the social planning model underscores utilization of problem-­ solving which experts adopt to address the social ills experienced by communities (Zastrow 2017). The expert’s role is a necessary one, given the tertiary education or training received to resolve social problems associated with poverty in deprived communities. In South Africa, the government has put forward an initiative to station social workers throughout provinces. Social workers are also stationed in deprived communities, however, in insufficient numbers. In most cases, the elderly have to walk long distances to access the services of social workers when applying for social relief during times of distress. Zastrow (2017) views social planning as advocating the availability of experts for the poor such as attorneys to provide free

8  Enhancing Poverty Reduction Through Community Work in Low-Resourced…

165

legal advice, teachers to provide free lessons, psychologists to provide trauma counselling, and nurses to provide medical service. However, in deprived communities, social workers and nurses are stationed there to assume all responsibilities along with assistance from school educators, community development workers, and ward counsellors. 8.4.1.5  Social Marketing Social marketing holds the view that the social functioning of community members depends on the attitude, concomitant behaviour, and utilization of available social services (Weyers 2011). Thus, this model is used in instances where community members lack information about social services which organizations provide for the betterment of their social well-being. This model holds the view that community members’ problems are in part perpetuated by their lack of knowledge and their use of available services as well as the extent to which those services address their needs. Social workers are responsible for informing community members of the services they provide. The reasoning behind this is to reconcile impediments which members face with available services or make the needed services available. To enhance their socioeconomic status, community members should enlist the help of social service personnel to acquire funds for further support of projects established in their communities. Stigmatization of Deprived Local Communities This chapter addresses the stigma of deprived local communities and looks at social welfare and quality of services provided. Services are usually lacking in deprived communities, and Spicker (2011) points out that this stigma can be traced back to a lack of fiscal policy and political influence. The author drew these conclusions when studying the situation in Britain, and his sentiments are also evident in South Africa, particularly its rural communities. Deprived communities lack resources because political leaders permit the provision of services to those they deem more deserving on account of socioeconomic status. However, the social marketing model dictates that service awareness campaigns are to be used to familiarize community members with previously unknown services (Weyers 2011). Accordingly, social workers lack resources to provide services to deprived communities, which sometimes means not having a vehicle to conduct site visits. Spicker (2011) concluded that community members are often afraid to seek services to help them eradicate poverty due to negative public attitudes attached to social welfare services. Following this line of argument, the author asserts that community members feel embarrassed seeking help from social service workers. Nonetheless, in deprived communities, a small percentage of individuals fears stigmatization given that a majority of people do indeed apply for social relief (e.g. food parcels) when necessary.

166

P. Mafa et al.

8.5  Policies that Inform Community Work Particular laws and policies in African countries support community work, some of which in South Africa including the White Paper on Reconstruction and Development (Republic of South Africa 1994), the White Paper on Social Welfare (Republic of South Africa 1997), the White Paper on Local Government (Republic of South Africa 1998), the Municipal Structures Act (Republic of South Africa 1998a, b), and the Cooperatives Act (Republic of South Africa 2005). According to Rikhotso (2013), the White Paper on Local Government provides the basis for community development in South Africa. It constitutes the main basis for establishing local structures. The Cooperatives Act seeks to promote participation, self-help, and self-­ reliance among vulnerable communities. The Municipal Structures Act mandates municipalities to consult and involve communities in all initiatives undertaken to develop local areas. The White Paper for Social Welfare aims to improve the quality of life for communities and individuals through equal distribution of social welfare services. It calls for access to social services. In Sect. 8.3, it recognizes that household income alone and/or poverty programmes cannot eradicate poverty (Republic of South Africa 1997). Along the same lines, Sect. 8.3 recognizes that due to poverty, people are deprived of education, especially those in rural areas, and as a result are unable to access social services (Republic of South Africa 1997). South Africa has invested in human capital as a way of increasing productivity in an attempt to lift people out of poverty. Moreover, Sect. 2.3 in Chap. 2 of the White Paper for Social Welfare recognizes that social welfare should bring sustainable improvements in the well-­ being of individuals, families, and communities (Republic of South Africa 1997). It places the responsibility of providing social services on community members to deal with the burden of poverty. As a result, various projects have been established to address food insecurity, such as the Lehlabile project at Vaalbank in Mpumalanga Province, where elderly people plant vegetables for both commercial and subsistence purposes. In addressing problems related to housing, the Republic of South Africa has taken the initiative of assisting individuals who cannot afford houses by providing them with free quality houses under the project of Reconstruction Development Programme (RDP). Again, Sect. 8.5 alludes that social welfare services and programmes are used in order to achieve good health, education, housing and employment, and rural and urban development as well as land reforms (Republic of South Africa 1997). Another notable policy in South Africa is the Community Work Programme. It is a government programme that various agencies implement on behalf of the Department of Cooperative Governance. The programme targets unemployed persons above the age of eighteen years. One of the objectives of the programme is to help develop public assets and services in disadvantaged communities through community-­ driven and community consultation processes. It further seeks to strengthen community and economic development for people in poor areas while promoting social and economic inclusion.

8  Enhancing Poverty Reduction Through Community Work in Low-Resourced…

167

Zimbabwe has various legislative acts that support community work. These include the Cooperative Societies Act (Government of Zimbabwe 2001). Cooperatives in Zimbabwe have been vibrant in areas that addressed the needs of housing, irrigation schemes, sewing, pottery, and dairy industries. Another notable policy in Zimbabwe is the Prime Minister’s 1984 directive which led to establishing local government structures from grassroots to national levels. Importance is also placed on Village Development Committees (VIDCOs), the Ward Development Committees (WADCOs) for rural areas, and Neighbourhood Development Committees for urban areas. Though the ruling party (ZANU-PF) has hijacked these structures, their original intention was to promote locality development.

8.6  I mpact of Sustainable Community Projects on Poverty Reduction Despite their best intentions, community development projects are not always successful. The failure of projects to meet objectives is attributable to various factors such as not addressing a community’s realistic needs, poorly coordinated efforts, poor implementation, little or no community, and/or beneficiary involvement. However, the projects that do achieve targeted results play a crucial role in reducing poverty in communities through tangible outcomes as discussed in this section.

8.6.1  Recognition of Strengths The active involvement of community members in development projects enables them to realize and utilize available resources belonging to them and the community. This kind of activity unearths the strengths of community members which they were not aware of. Some people have untapped leadership skills that had been lying dormant but are subsequently uncovered during the project. This recognition and utilization of strengths and talents encourages community members to initiate their own projects even after the involvement of professionals. This activity lets the community develop further as they address other needs not covered in the initial project. As Swanepoel and De Beer (2011) noted, the sustainability of community development projects depends on the extent to which local people are involved. Furthermore, projects lead to poverty reduction when leadership skills and capabilities possessed by beneficiaries are uncovered. The following case study demonstrates how recognition of strengths and abilities leads to further development coupled with increased human capital which is essential for development and combating poverty.

168

P. Mafa et al.

Case Vignette 1 A certain rural community was living in socioeconomic stagnation. The main source of income for community members was government social security. They spent most of their days loitering and idling because they had no other ways of spending their time. They were unaware that they possessed the ability to change their own lives. A government-appointed social worker was assigned to the villagers and assigned the task of turning the situation around. Initially, the villagers were sceptical and apprehensive about having a stranger working with them. The workers did not act like the project leader but rather strengthened the capacity of beneficiaries and helped them manage their own development, in the process recognizing and accommodating their skills and personalities. This allowed beneficiaries to gain self-confidence and identify the challenges they faced and find lasting solutions. They became initiators of other poverty reduction projects such as a local bakery. The bakery products are sold to the community at a low price compared to products produced by larger commercial bakeries.

8.6.2  Positive Outlook on Life and Reduced Apathy People living in poverty usually accept their living conditions, with the belief that the current situation is simply predestined. They become too attached to their situation and have a sense of helplessness which makes them feel that they will not be able to break away from poverty unless some external forces act on their lives (external locus of control). They do not believe their own efforts can bring positive change to their lives (de Holan et al. 2019). This phenomenon is termed “learned helplessness” and denotes that an individual is in a state that prevents them from utilizing their abilities to act and make positive change to their lives (van Rensburg 2013). Moreover, the period of helplessness is characterized by sorrow, shame, and fear that success cannot be obtained in the person’s community, hence their decision to migrate to a bigger city. On that note, the decision to migrate is based on rural underdevelopment as well as a lack of infrastructure and limited economic opportunities (Mlambo 2018). Lack of opportunities attributable to underdevelopment and neglect by government officials encourages the active, working-age youth to migrate to larger cities, which Mlambo (2018) warns will continue the cycle of poverty and underdevelopment as the few skilled and innovative members of the community are lost to more developed cities. When community members participate in development projects, they become aware of their capabilities and are eventually more autonomous and less reliant on external assistance. This internal locus of control has the potential of lessening feelings of apathy and helplessness. In these situations, individuals who do not feel sorry for themselves possess the ability to be initiators of change and in turn remove encountered impediments. The training received in development projects such as

8  Enhancing Poverty Reduction Through Community Work in Low-Resourced…

169

carpentry, knitting, and sewing is essential in reducing poverty and instils a sense of hope for the future in community members. Development projects foster skills and development opportunities for beneficiaries through training received and information shared. Others receive formal training through government involvement (Small Enterprise Development Agency). These skills include computer training and business management courses which help them start their own businesses. Improved quality of life for communities gained from skills capacitation is important in rooting out idleness in communities and encouraging members to work together in sustaining the improved quality of life. The acquisition of skills is a collective morale booster for the community and an impetus for further development.

8.6.3  Strengthened Sense of Togetherness It is easy for rural inhabitants, particularly women, to initiate a group that is central to community development (Makhubele 2008). The sense of togetherness found in these groups is a crucial factor in the social capital necessary for combating poverty. The sense of togetherness implies that community members are bound together by membership ties and strongly feel the need to help each other in times of need. As Baiyegunhi (2014) put it, social capital has a direct positive impact on household poverty reduction. Involving community-based groups is imperative in community development given that most government interventions such as land reform and poverty alleviation strategies are usually rolled out through these social networks (Kongolo and Bamgose 2002) which are a major component of social capital. Social capital refers to networks, relationships, and norms that shape the quality and quantity of society’s social interactions (Imandoust 2011 in Baiyegunhi 2014). It has six components and includes groups and networks, trust and solidarity, collective action and co-operation, information and communication, social cohesion and inclusion, and empowerment and political action. Groups and Networks  African communities are not individualistic and as such value communalism as is evident in their cultures. Forming mutual aid groups within and outside their families and clan circles is common among rural communities. Communal living has been enculturated in these communities ­ throughout the years from generation to generation. Community development projects help expand the social networks of beneficiaries which is important in development. Projects are a social interaction platform beneficial to human beings given that we are social beings seeking a sense of belonging. This is evident in the forming of special interest groups such the stokvel and working groups. A person can belong to various interest groups or a group can have various interests. Trust and Solidarity  The success of this group depends largely on the level of trust between community members and the sense of togetherness and willingness to help each other in difficult times.

170

P. Mafa et al.

Collective Action and Co-operation  Having a common goal and working towards achieving it facilitates a feeling of camaraderie between community members regardless of demographic factors such as gender and age. Members are committed to putting their resources (time, money, knowledge) together for a common cause. These groups, given that they are formed by people based on kinship and friendship, are able to promptly respond to the immediate needs of their members which would otherwise not be possible in formal systems. Information and Communication  This component is concerned with how community members connect with each other and keep abreast with what is happening in the world through the use of technology. Social Cohesion and Inclusion  This social capital component is determined by the extent to which community members feel a part of the society—a sense of belonging and mutual aid. The value of Ubuntu entrenched in rural communities strengthens the sense of oneness among community members and is essential in mitigating certain impacts of poverty. Empowerment and Political Action  This component of social capital focuses on whether community members have a say in decisions impacting their daily lives. Community development participation has a way of awakening people’s political will as they realize the importance of their involvement in political actions. This is perhaps influenced by the involvement of government or political structures in community development initiatives. Case Vignette 2 Mapapila is a village on the outskirts of Giyani Town in the Northern part of South Africa. Some women in the village have set up groups with differing interests after realizing that their loved ones were not given a dignified final send-off when they died. So, they set up stokvels. Members can contribute an agreed amount of money to the stokvels on a monthly basis. The money is either deposited into a joint bank account or cash is given to each member for a period as agreed upon by all members. The money is used to address various needs ranging from purchasing groceries, funeral expenses, tuition fees for children, building houses, or buying furniture. These groups act as loan entities and lend money to members who would not have been able to get a loan from commercial lenders such as banks. This allows them to do things for themselves as opposed to relying on external assistance.

8.6.4  Women Empowerment Across the globe, the general consensus is that women are living in poorer conditions than men (United Nations 2018). They have always been the sole providers of households, and poverty has been an obstacle preventing them from doing that

8  Enhancing Poverty Reduction Through Community Work in Low-Resourced…

171

optimally (Tsheola 2012). In South Africa, rural women constitute 59% of the poor inhabitants. Despite being in the numerical majority, women are allocated from 1000 to 5000 square metres of land which they use for social and agricultural purposes (Kongolo and Bamgose 2002, Moyo 2013). This is mostly due to the fact that rural women make up only 10% of land reform beneficiaries (Bornman et al. 2013). This disproportion in land ownership is largely attributed to gender injustice fuelled by societal and institutional constraints such as patriarchy and government failures. The poverty of rural women is worsened by the fact that they are often the sole and/or primary carers of their children and other extended family members while relying on limited resources and owing to the fact that their male partners often migrate to cities in search of better economic opportunities. Kongolo and Bamgose (2002) argue that a major strength of women is their major contribution to economic production in their communities and that they assume primary responsibility for their families. An African proverb says “mmagongwana o swara thipa ka bogaleng”, or loosely translated, “mother grabs the knife by the blade”. The essence of this proverb is that through their difficulties, women devise ways to avoid anguish for themselves and their children. A woman’s work on the land puts them in a better position to initiate poverty alleviation projects. Their participation in successful community projects boosts their confidence and relinquishes them from a dependency they may have had on their husbands or romantic partners while lowering levels of inequality in their homes and perhaps the community as a whole, given that rural women are usually subjected to accepting subordination and a false sense of inferiority due to customary laws. This gives them the opportunity to be independent in deciding on many aspects of these projects. This self-determination makes them more appreciative of the development process and enhances their sense of belonging (Moyo 2014). Empowerment of women does not occur only in economic terms. The ability of women to manage projects highlights their leadership and decision-making capabilities, meaning that women empowerment has great potential in reducing the feminization of poverty. Case Vignette 3 A group of women in Runnymede Village use a piece of land to cultivate vegetables and other consumable crops. They collectively sell to supermarkets in town and local small fresh produce markets all year round. This project has been in existence for more than a decade and is responsible for the economic independence of women who would otherwise not participate in the economic sphere or labour market given that they are not skilled or semi-skilled, are illiterate or have a low literacy rate, or lack formal education. This group of women have been able to send their children to school, others to colleges through the income they earn. Though initiated by government, the project is currently self-sustainable, and the income earned is fundamental in the economic independence of these women.

172

P. Mafa et al.

8.6.5  Protection from Societal Ostracization In an effort to reduce stigmatization against people infected and affected by HIV/ AIDS, the government of Zimbabwe has established nutritional gardens that were started on state-owned municipal land. There are twelve nutritional gardens scattered throughout the low-cost residential areas of Bulawayo, and examples of these are Burombo, Greenspan, St Columbus near Mzilikazi and Makokoba, Luveve, Entumbane, Mpopoma, Lobengula, and Njube. Crops grown are mainly vegetables and the most common is choumoliaer. The popular variety is grown from shoots and does not need seeds. Other vegetables grown are spinach, rape, cabbage, tsunga, carrots, onions, and tomatoes. These gardens aim to alleviate urban poverty and improve the nutritional condition of the poor. An estimated 1522 households are beneficiaries of this initiative (World Vision 2008). To avoid social exclusion of people affected by HIV/AIDS, beneficiaries are drawn from a mixed group of community members selected by social workers from the Department of Housing and Community Services. The mixed group of beneficiaries ensures an awareness of HIV/AIDS, which lessens the shunning and stigmatization of persons affected by the epidemic.

8.7  Conclusion Acute poverty remains a threat to humanity in most countries of the developing world. Social workers continue to play a critical role in poverty eradication through community work. These professionals need to acknowledge and ensure active participation of the local people in all projects and programmes. The involvement of community members is crucial in achieving the sustainable development goal of poverty reduction, through the use of various community work models and theories. These community work models and theories provide concrete steps and objectives in poverty reduction strategies as they are rooted in African realities and sociocultural aspects of communities. The communal nature of African life facilitates implementation of community projects. Accordingly, most African countries have policies promoting community work. These include the South African White Paper for Social Welfare, the Zimbabwean Prime Minister’s Directive of 1984, and the Cooperative Societies Act. Community projects have been implemented in areas that include income generation, housing, agriculture, health, and also pottery.

References Ahmed, R., & Pretorius-Heuchert, J. (2001). Notions of social change in community psychology: Issues and challenges. In M. Seedat, N. Duncan, & S. Lazarus (Eds.), Community psychology: Theory, method and practice, South African and other perspectives (pp. 67–85). Cape Town: Oxford University Press.

8  Enhancing Poverty Reduction Through Community Work in Low-Resourced…

173

Baiyegunhi, L. J. S. (2014). Social capital effects on rural household poverty in Msinga, KwaZulu-­ Natal, South Africa. Agrekon, 53(2), 47–64. https://doi.org/10.1080/03031853.2014.915478. Bornman, S., Budlender, D., Clarke, Y., Manoek, S., van der Westhuizen, C., Watson, J., Antunes, S., & Iqbal, N. (2013). The State of the Nation, Government Priorities and Women in South Africa. Cape Town: Women’s Legal Centre. Bresnahan, K.  A., & Tanumihardjo, S.  A. (2014). Under nutrition, the acute phase response to infection, and its effects on micronutrient status indicators. Advances in Nutrition, 5(6), 702–711. https://doi.org/10.3945/an.114.006361. de Holan, P.  M., Willi, A., & Fernández, P.  D. (2019). Breaking the Wall: Emotions and Projective Agency Under Extreme Poverty. Business & Society, 58(5), 919–962. https://doi. org/10.1177/0007650317745633. Engelbrecht, L.  K. (2005). Perspectives on the community education model of social work: Implications for education and practice. Social Work/Maatskaplike Werk, 41(2), 143–154. Ering, S. O., & Akpan, F. U. (2012). The politics of fuel subsidy, populist resistance and its socio-­ economic implications for Nigeria. Global Journal of Human Social Science, 12(7), 12–20. Ering, S. O., Out, J. E., & Archibong, E. P. (2014). Rural development policies in Nigeria: A critical appraisal. International Journal of Education and Research, 2(9), 307–320. Gojová, A., & Gojová, V. (2008). Community social work. Ostrava: University of Ostrava. Government of Zimbabwe. (2001). Cooperative Societies Act Chapter 24:05. Harare: Government Printers. Harriss-White, B. (2003). Poverty and Disability, Paper presented at the Staying. Poor: Chronic Poverty and Development Conference, University of Manchester. Homan, M. (2004). Promoting community change: Making it happen in the real world. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks. Imandoust, S. B. (2011). Relationship between education and social capital. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science 1(12), 52–57. Khosa, M. (2000). Empowerment through Service Delivery. Pretoria: Human Science Research Council. Kongolo, M., & Bamgose, O. O. (2002). Participation of Rural Women in Development: A Case Study of Tsheseng, Thintwa, and Makhalaneng Villages, South Africa. Journal of International Women’s Studies, 4(1), 79–92. Mabughi, N., & Selim, T. (2006). Poverty as social deprivation: A survey. Review of Social Economic, 64(2), 181–204. https://doi.org/10.1080/00346760600721122. Mabvurira, V. (2016). Influence of African traditional religion and spirituality in understanding chronic illnesses and its implications for social work practice: A case of Chiweshe communal lands in Zimbabwe (Doctoral Thesis, University of Limpopo). Semantic scholar. https://pdfs. semanticscholar.org/1ed0/8310997229f33d439547ac04d8a4befccef5.pdf Mabvurira, V., & Makhubele, J. C. (2014). Eurocentric spiritual hegemony, an impediment to the incorporation of African spirituality in social work practice in Zimbabwe. Theologia Viatorum: Journal of Theology and Religion in Africa, 38(1), 78–95. Makhubele, J. (2008). The impact of indigenous community based groups towards social development. Indilinga-African Journal of Indigenous Knowledge systems, 7(1), 37–46. https://doi. org/10.4314/indilinga.v7i1.26391. Mbigi, L. (1997). Ubuntu: The African dream in management. Randburg: Knowledge Resources. Midgely, J. (1997). Social welfare in a global context. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. Mlambo, V. (2018). An overview of rural-urban migration in South Africa: Its causes and implications. Archives of Business Research, 6(4), 63–70. https://doi.org/10.14738/abr.64.4407. Moyo, C.  S. (2013). Rural Women and Land, the Inseparable Twins: A Case of South Africa. Gender & Behaviour, 11(2), 5393–5401. Moyo, C.  S. (2014). Active Participation of Rural Women in Developmental Issues: Poverty Alleviation Lessons for South Africa. Gender & Behaviour, 12(1), 5994–6001. Mungai, N.  W. (2015). Afrocentric social work: Implications for practice issues. In V.  Pulla & B. Mamidi (Eds.), Some aspects of community empowerment (pp. 65–76). New Delhi: Allied Publishers Private Limited.

174

P. Mafa et al.

Patel, L. (2005). Social welfare and social development in South Africa. Cape Town: Oxford University Press. Pawar, M. (2014). Social work practice with local communities in developing nations: Imperatives for political engagement. Sage Publication, Sage Open. doi:https://doi. org/10.1177/2158244014538640. Popple, K. (1995). Analysing Community Work. Its Theory and Practice. Buckingham-Philadelphia: Open University Press. Pradeep, M., & Sathyamurthi, K. (2017). The “Community” in “Community Social Work”. IOSR Journal Of Humanities And Social Science, 22(9), 58–64. https://doi. org/10.9790/0837-­2209015864. Republic of South Africa. (1994). The White Paper of Reconstruction and Development. Cape Town: Government Print. Republic of South Africa. (1997). The White Paper on Social Welfare. Pretoria: Government Print. Republic of South Africa. (1998a). The White Paper on Local Government. Pretoria: Government Print. Republic of South Africa. (1998b). Municipal Structures Act (117 of 1998). Pretoria: Government Print. Republic of South Africa. (2005). The Cooperatives Act (14 of 2005). Cape Town: Government Print. Republic of South Africa. (2013). Sakhisizwe Local Municipality Integrated Development Planning, 2013–2014. Eastern Cape: Government Printers. Rikhotso, R.  H (2013). The challenges of community development workers in the implementation of the Community Development Workers’ Programme in Makhado Local Municipality, Limpopo Province (Masters dissertation, Stellenbosch University). https://scholar.sun.ac.za/ bitstream/handle/10019.1/85656/rikhotso_challenges_2013.pdf?sequence=1 Ringson, J. (2017). Zunderamambo as a traditional coping mechanism for the care of orphans and vulnerable children: Evidence from Gutu district, Zimbabwe. African Journal of Social Work, 7(2), 52–59. Roe, D., Nelson, F., & Sandbrook, C. (2009). Community management of natural resources in Africa: Impacts, experiences and future directions. London: International Institute for Environment and Development. Schiele, J. H. (2000). Human services and afro-centric paradigms. New York: The Haworth Press. Shava, E., & Thakhuthi, D.  R. (2016). Challenges in the Implementation of Community Development Projects in the Eastern Cape Province, South Africa. Journal of Human Ecology, 56(3), 363–373. https://doi.org/10.1080/09709274.2016.11907073. Sheafor, B. W., & Horejsi, C. R. (2012). Techniques and Guidelines for Social Work Practice (9th ed.). New York: Allyn & Bacon. Spicker, P. (2011). How Social Security Works: An introduction to benefits in Britain. Cambridge: Policy Press. Swanepoel, H., & De Beer, F. (2011). Community Development: Breaking the cycle of poverty (5th ed.). Lansdowne: South Africa. Thomas, D. N. (1983). The Making of Community Work. London: George Allen & Unwin. Tsheola, N.  M. (2012). The impact of poverty alleviation projects on women’s development in rural communities of Mogalakwena Municipality, Limpopo Province: A case study of Malokong, Masipa and Rooiwal poultry projects. Mini-dissertation Master of Development. Limpopo: University of Limpopo. Semantic scholar. https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/532c/0a91075f5b4fd81fef20f7eb8bd8728c4b32. pdf?_ga=2.109112194.608032203.1594479346-­480226896.1569687480 United Nations. (2018). The sustainable development goals. UN Women Headquarters: United Nations. Uwimbabazi, P. (2012). An analysis of Umuganda: the policy and practice of community work in Rwanda. (Doctoral dissertation, University of KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa). Semantic scholar. https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/555a/89624e0a7c7d0d49fd9561391a74afb4f20b.pdf

8  Enhancing Poverty Reduction Through Community Work in Low-Resourced…

175

van Rensburg, J.  J. (2013). The psychology of poverty. Verbum et Ecclesia, 34(1). https://doi. org/10.4102/ve.v34i1.825. Weyers, M. L. (2001). The Theory and Practice of Community Work: A South African Perspective. Potchefstroom: Keurkopie. Weyers, M. L. (2011). The theory and practice of community work: A Southern African perspective (2nd ed.). Potchefsroom: Keurkopie. Wood, G. (2003). Staying Secure, Staying Poor: The “Faustian Bargain”. World Development, 31(3), 455–471. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0305-­750X(02)00213-­9. World Vision. (2008). Urban Agriculture a critical Food Security and liveli-hood strategy: A case of Mthombowesizwe garden in Bulawayo. London: Department for International Development (DFID). Zastrow, C. (1989). The Practice of Social Work (3rd ed.). Chicago: Dorsey Press. Zastrow, C. (2017). Introduction to Social Work and Social Welfare: Empowering People (12th ed.). Boston: Cengage Learning.

Chapter 9

Developing Smart Social Services for Mending the Gap in Development Inequalities Nino Žganec

9.1  Introduction Communities are important places of human development and quality of life for individuals and families while providing a major impact on the development of society as a whole. Much information is found in literature on the essence of communities and their potential. There are many common but also diametrically opposed opinions about the essence and meaning of community as a concept. Important contributions to understanding the concept of community are provided by sociologists such as Tocqueville, Comte, Tonnies, Le Play, Marx, Durkheim, and others. By touching on the notion of community, their works have left a significant mark in later attempts to parse and define the term “community”. Although their approaches to the concept of community were often close to a “sentimental mourning” of the loss of natural human habitat (e.g. Comte), their works were also a significant contribution to both an empirical description and normative prescription of the underlying concept of “community”. For example, in his theory of anomie, Durkheim (1951) speaks about the problem of disintegrating social relations that lead towards lawlessness, which is essentially a consequence of the transition of a community into society (otherwise known as the Tonnies dichotomy), that is, the transition from the so-called state of mechanical solidarity into organic solidarity. In his theory of structural functionalism, Parsons and Shils (1952) included a community-society dichotomy relying on the concept of “sets of variables” in which he includes the following: –– Affectivity versus affective neutrality: is it appropriate to demonstrate or delay emotion in social interactions N. Žganec (*) Faculty of Law, Department of Social Work, University of Zagreb, Zagreb, Croatia e-mail: [email protected]

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 A. Opačić (ed.), Practicing Social Work in Deprived Communities, European Social Work Education and Practice, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-65987-5_9

177

178

N. Žganec

–– Specificity versus diffusion: whether a relationship is narrow such as between a bureaucrat and client or broad and inclusive as is the case between a mother and child or between spouses –– Universalism versus particularism: whether a particular action is driven by generalised standards (equality of opportunity) or by a scheme inherent for actors in interrelationships (e.g. nepotism) –– Quality versus performance: whether an actor is characterised on the basis of who or what they are or the basis of what they are able to do Parsons’ notion of community includes affectivity, diffusion, particularism, and quality. The classical sociological interpretation of community is encapsulated in “Gemeinschaft” (Tonnies 1955). In these organic communities, individuals are bound by kinship or the soil. They are engaged in common tasks and share frequent interactions in the village as members bound by spirit. Tonnies believes that there are intimate interpersonal relationships in a community based on a clear understanding of each member’s position in society. A person’s value is judged by who they are, not what they have done. In a community, roles are specific and consonant with one another. In such circumstances, obligations are not perceived as opposing others. Community members are relatively immobile in physical and social terms, meaning that individuals neither travel far from their place of birth nor rise up the social hierarchy. Community culture is relatively homogeneous, where moral customs of the community, family, and church are firm and internalised. There are peculiar sentiments in the community that include a narrow and lasting loyalty to the place and people of the community. Accordingly, the community promotes immobility, making it difficult for people to attain other merit-based statuses. The moral code is empowered and protected in the community in that it raises moral tensions while portraying heresy as a serious crime. Everyone in a community knows each other and where each person’s position lies within the social structure. This results in the personalisation of problems and events as a family name is linked to everything that is happening. Based on Tonnies’ breakdown of the concept of community, the later works by sociologists are largely based on a “fundamental” understanding that defines community as a “local” organisation incorporating essential elements comprising blood, place, and opinion with sociological consequences tied to kinship, neighbourhood, and friendship. This so-called local community encompasses religion, work, family, culture, and, of course, territory. According to Tonnies, the concept of “society” denotes everything that a community is not. Society points to a long continuum of apersonal and contractual relationships that, according to nineteenth-century sociologists, have spread at the expense of the community. Tonnies’ breakdown is the starting point of almost all contemporary conceptualisations of community. Contemporary perceptions of community traverse into different directions, with a general consensus that communities are understood as either geographic entities or groups sharing a special concern or identity, that is, functional communities (Weil 2005). Moreover, since communities have various impacts on people’s lives (positive, negative, and sometimes neutral), as

9  Developing Smart Social Services for Mending the Gap in Development Inequalities

179

pointed out by Netting et al. (2004), they are the context of all social work practice, where community practice is recognised as a major means of carrying forward the profession’s long-standing ethical commitment to social justice.

9.2  C  ommunities at Risk: Remote and Deprived Communities Although numerous types of risks encountered by communities can be defined, here reference is made to those risks associated with deprived and remote communities found in the literature in order to highlight possible contributions of social work in stabilising and improving the quality of life of its residents. Some authors, who have researched the phenomenon of remote communities such as Doxey and McNamara (2015), stress that in many parts of Australia, including the remote south-east, social work services are largely unavailable. Rural and remote social workers in Australia typically encounter a wide range of psychosocial problems but have very limited access to referral networks, with options becoming fewer as remoteness increases. Hsiao and Schmidt (2015) warned that the problem for rural areas, and especially the more remote ones, is the approach to organising services targeting those in need given that those same people are scattered over vast tracts of country. Some authors point out typical problems faced by residents in remote communities. If there are few (or no) jobs that require higher education, those young people committed to staying in their isolated communities for personal reasons have no incentive to get the necessary education (Denkenberger et al. 2015). As a result, the cycle of poverty continues from one generation to another. Furthermore, people wanting to remain in remote communities have traditionally become economically, socially, and politically disadvantaged. The probability of interpersonal social interactions in remote agrarian communities decreases with remoteness and administrative boundaries (Grauwin et  al. 2017), especially in populations characterised by limited physical mobility (Matous 2017; Matous et al. 2013). Ahmed et al. (2004) pointed out that disadvantaged communities are primarily high-risk environments. They suggested a complex interaction process between risk and resiliency processes in different historically disadvantaged communities. Additionally, Kelly et al. (2011) stressed that the influence of “rurality” can be reconceptualised as a simple proxy for a set of specific geographically dispersed health determinants that prevail in nonmetropolitan areas, including a socioeconomic disadvantage (greater in many rural areas), greater exposure and vulnerability to environmental adversity (e.g. severe drought) and its socioeconomic sequelae, vulnerability to change and related impacts on community infrastructure, poorer access to health and social services, and geographic isolation (and, more specifically, social isolation). The concept of deprivation is linked to many remote communities. According to Terashima et al. (2013), the term deprivation in health research depicts the level of disadvantage of an individual or group compared to the standard provided by the society to which they belong. Barnes et al.

180

N. Žganec

(2005) pointed out that community deprivation has traditionally been conceptualised as an economic concept focusing on household income and employment rates. Furthermore, deprivation is caused not only by insufficient personal resources, but also by unsatisfactory community resources such as low-achieving schools and poor public transport. Notions of social exclusion and social capital have led to recognising additional social and structural factors, such as housing, health, and access to both training and job opportunities as well as key services which potentially compound the effects of material deprivation (Room 1998). Townsend (1979, 1987 in Noble et  al. 2010) distinguishes between social and material deprivation and lays down the foundation for articulating multiple deprivations as an accumulation of single deprivations, a formulation which is the starting point for the small-area deprivation model. Single deprivations, such as health deprivation or education deprivation, can be aggregated on area level. This will indicate on a proportion of the population experiences a certain type of deprivation or some form of deprivation. Combination of single deprivations can be also aggregated on area level, and it will be described as area multiple deprivation. Multiple deprivation is not specific but is simply a weighted combination of specific forms of deprivation. Barnes et al. (2005) concluded that the concept of deprivation viewed as multifaceted is necessary in understanding the functioning of the family and child development, where the increase in small area-level interventions is an obvious consequence of these ideas. An important indicator of existing situation in communities is measured by the index of deprivation. Noble and Wright (2013) used the example of South Africa where a number of national-level indices on deprivation were produced. The examples include Vichi’s (1997) index of deprivation based on the 1993 South Africa Living Standards and Development Survey, Klasen’s (1997, 2000) deprivation index which uses the same dataset, the Lived Poverty Index (Afrobarometer 2004; Mattes et  al. 2003), the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) Human Development Index, Human Poverty Index, Gender Empowerment Measure and Service Deprivation Index (UNDP 2003), the Capability Poverty Measure (UNDP 1996), and the Multidimensional Poverty Index (Alkire and Santos 2010). Similar indices can be found in other parts of the world. Oudin Åström et al. (2018) emphasised that most neighbourhood studies in industrialised countries use relative measures of neighbourhood deprivation. Although the basic needs of most people in industrialised countries are covered, the link between deprivation, mortality, and health-related outcomes exists. These same authors also showed how the link between neighbourhood deprivation, mortality, and impaired health is well established. There is evidence of a link between neighbourhood deprivation and mortality, including cardiovascular mortality and cardiovascular morbidity as well as poor overall health, coronary heart disease incidence rates as well as case fatalities which were higher in deprived neighbourhoods than in wealthier neighbourhoods. The study conducted by Oudin Åström et al. (2018) shows that there are certain links between neighbourhood deprivation and coronary heart disease. But as stressed by Noble et al. (2010), a concentration of people experiencing deprivation in an area may lead to a compounding deprivation effect, mea-

9  Developing Smart Social Services for Mending the Gap in Development Inequalities

181

sured with respect to those same individuals. According to Skifter Andersen (2008), deprived neighbourhoods can be understood as “excluded places”. This exclusion is caused by self-perpetuating social, cultural, financial, and physical deterioration, making these neighbourhoods diverge from the rest of the city. Development of these areas tends to make “ordinary” people flee to other parts of cities, subsequently making room for an increasing concentration of low-income and socially excluded groups and increasing spatial divisions between social groups (Andersen 2008). This effect is even more serious when looking at the segregation of ethnic minorities. Finally, Holt-Jensen (2000) addressed that different processes of exclusion reinforce one another in deprived urban neighbourhoods. These neighbourhoods, hit by multiple social exclusions, are characterised by social homogenisation. People possessing resources migrate out of such neighbourhoods. Those with little housing choices are increasingly assigned to social housing, and disempowered social groups rebuild collective identity in such context. Inhabitants are increasingly treated as clients, not as participants and stakeholders in the local decision-making process. Many other findings point to the fact that deprived communities, remote communities, and often rural communities face numerous risks that affect not only the current quality of life for residents but also the future lives of individuals and families living in them. The question involves addressing possible opportunities for professionals (social workers and others) to influence, through targeted interventions, improvements to living conditions in such communities and prevention deterioration in them over time. These questions are addressed below.

9.3  Mending the Gaps Through Professional Social Work The social work profession has always addressed developmental inequality issues. The International Federation of Social Workers (IFSW) recently defined social work as a practice-based profession and academic discipline that promotes social change and development, social cohesion and the empowerment and liberation of people. The principles of social justice, human rights, collective responsibility and respect for diversities are fundamental to social work. The aim of interventions from social work is to resolve life challenges and enhance human well-being (IFSW 2014). A particularly important factor for influencing living conditions in deprived communities is community social work that has developed as a branch within social work from the very beginning of the profession. One should recall the sources of social work within the settlement movement and activities of Jane Adams, as well as hundreds and thousands of other social workers who have shaped their practices in communities throughout the world. Today, these devised experiences and theoretical and practical models, including best practices, are used to influence the lives of peoples facing new challenges and new opportunities. Itzhaky and York (2002) argued that there appears to be two main thrusts in new literature on major foci of modern community practice, that is, collaboration and empowerment. The underly-

182

N. Žganec

ing idea behind collaboration and cooperation among community services, formal and informal, professional and lay, is not new but has received emphasis as the focus of macro practice, both for community organisers and generic social workers. A conceptual model for defining collaboration is provided by Germain (1984) and was subsequently reviewed by Bope and Jost (1994). The common forms of collaboration according to this model are conferment, cooperation, consultation, multiple entries and teamwork. Franklin and Streeter (1995) defined five models of collaboration: informal relations, coordination, partnerships, collaboration and integration. These models demonstrate stages of collaboration from little commitment to significant collaboration. Reismann (1964) pointed out three basic strategies for possible effective intervention: (1) direct economic change such as providing better employment through the provision of a national minimal income level; (2) direct services, such as casework activities, to strengthen the functioning of the individual or family; and (3) indirect change by affecting the social, psychological, and political climate of neighbourhoods in which the poor residents live. When it comes to collaboration and providing social services, deprived communities often suffer from insufficient coordination and integration of social services. Very often we can notice that people remain uniformed of their rights, social services are inaccessible, procedures are over-bureaucratised, and legal requirements are too rigid so people cannot receive service they need. The sense and ultimate aim of professional social work is to provide help to people when needed and in the most appropriate way in order to protect their dignity and their rights. Lack of community coordination is a sign that the system has been neglected, which in turn requires reorganisation or reform. In order to make the changes in the system possible, social workers are invited to political engagement and become influential both within and outside the community. According to the critical theorists, social workers can have greater political impact if they are in alliance with their clients, that is, with citizens in the community. Concept of empowerment is essential to this note. Zimmerman and Rappaport (1988) conceptualise empowerment through a number of personal, cognitive, motivational, and behavioural variables: internal locus of control, chance control, belief in powerful others, control ideology, self-efficacy, sense of mastery, perceived competence, political efficacy, desire for control, civic duty, leadership, alienation, community activities, and level of involvement in organisations. Zimmerman and Zahniser (1991) emphasised sociopolitical control, leadership competence, and policy control. Saegert and Winkel (1996) postulated that empowerment as reflected in individual attitudes and actions is the consequence rather than the cause of collective action. Belcher et al. (2005) pointed out that social workers should be aiming for empowerment, educating clients on community goals and resources so that clients begin to become independent and thus invest in their communities. The (re)orientation of social work from the concept of human needs to the concept of human rights strongly emphasises power of human beings, their capabilities, and their strengths. With this regard the process of empowerment means that social work should assist in the process of enabling citizens to fight for their quality of life.

9  Developing Smart Social Services for Mending the Gap in Development Inequalities

183

This can be especially important for the residence of deprived communities where the lack of citizens’ power is obvious. Different types of empowerment (empowering individuals, empowering groups, empowering communities, and empowering organisations) practised in social work represent important professional tools useful not only for the citizens in their communities but also makes social work much more convincing in its professional endeavours. In this approach, the social worker is seen as a partner to the citizens who struggle with issues of everyday life. Social worker contributes in developing vision, raising consciousness, taking action, and engaging in praxis (action, reflection on the action, return to action and reflection) in order to develop critical perspective and to challenge the indirect (internalised) and external power blocks that keep us oppressed (Lee 2001). The strengths perspective is the basis of empowerment. Empowerment is based on an idea that social worker understands difficulties in everyday life situations and is engaged both in personal support and structural changes. Community development as well as the general practice of community social work should contribute to the social development of deprived communities. Weil (1996) regards social development as an enabling and empowering approach to community practice which is not so much a model as it is an ethic or focus that guides practice. It is an approach that lends itself to the idea of locality, whereby social and economic change is generated in ways that empower and are sensitive to local traditions, opportunities, interests, and realities. Values such as community, equality, and mutual responsibility are important considerations within the concept of social development. On the surface, these values appear to be consistent with the profession of social work. Community social work also needs to contribute to the well-being of people within a community and to the social capital that has significant influence on well-being of all members of the community. The concept of social capital refers to both individual and community-level characteristics, such as perceived trust, shared values, security, participation, and community resources, amenities, and services. Attention has been given to such factors and the role they might play in understanding geographic health variations. This includes subjective ratings of quality of communities, social support, social integration and attachment, access to services, confidence in getting help from neighbours, and key socioeconomic factors such as income inequality (Kelly et al. 2011). Concerning the social capital, it is worth to note the crucial distinction between “bonding” and “bridging” social capital (Putnam 2000; Woolcock 1998). The former helps people of similar social backgrounds to “get by”, while the latter helps people from different backgrounds to “get ahead” (Field 2003). Poor, homogenous communities are said to be rich in bonding social capital but to lack bridging capital (Fitzpatrick 2004). Thus, for poorer, non-mixed communities, social capital may strengthen place attachment since getting by is associated with a particular place. For more affluent people, their social capital does not have the same implications for place attachment, since their social capital, especially bridging capital, is dependent on connections to people in a variety of places. But if we turn from the networks element of social capital to the trust and norms elements, then for all social groups we might expect that social capital may generate place attachment due to the sense of safety and support it offers people. Social capital con-

184

N. Žganec

sists of the total sum of resources an individual or a group has by virtue of being “enmeshed in networks of more or less institutionalised relationships of mutual acquaintance and recognition, or through membership in a group” (Bourdieu 1986, p. 248). It is possible to distinguish between informal social capital and formal social capital. Informal social capital consists of shifting social ties such as relations when you buy and sell things, based on exchange, trust, and obligations. Some relations to neighbours, or people you socialise with in the pub, may be of the same kind. To make this a social resource, the individual must have the feeling of being able to cope in such informal situations. Formal social capital is made up of ties anchored in formal organisations in which the individual participates as a member, client, or ward (Wacquant 1998). Social capital factors include trust and cohesion; willingness to take action for the community’s benefit; community engagement, such as voting or volunteering; behavioural norms; and gender norms. Another important component of well-being in community is participation of its members. According to Gillespie (2009), participation in the community is seen as key to building attachment to the community. Participation offers an opportunity to shape the life of the community, to build social capital, and to influence the provision of services (Halseth and Sullivan 2002). Rich et al. (1995) showed that citizen participation is an essential element of formal, intrapersonal, instrumental, and substantive empowerment. However, some degree of “intrapersonal empowerment” may be “a prerequisite to active participation”, although it also can be “a product of participation”. Thus, authors conclude that participation and psychological empowerment are clearly connected, but the relationship between them may be complex.

9.4  Smart Social Services The problem of quality of life for people in remote communities suffering from the consequences of underdeveloped social capital, lack of citizen’s participation, underdeveloped social services, and generally low living standards must be addressed systematically and continuously. Social services remain too often neglected and approached as kind of last resort for those who are losers and incapable to maintain their lives by themselves. They are approached as too expensive and unnecessary, especially in underdeveloped and deprived communities. This approach is highly supported by those neoliberal economists and politicians who insist on economic indicators as main and only signs of social progress. Contrary to this approach, social services should be one of the main ingredients for the community development since there will not be any economic progress without social stability, solidarity, social justice, and well-being of the citizens in the community. Social services which provide services for the most vulnerable citizens are of special importance and should be carefully developed by social workers and other professionals in the community. This task to develop good social services in underdeveloped, deprived, and remote communities is connected with the need to invest additional funds, specialised knowledge, and peculiar feelings for the way of life in the concrete community.

9  Developing Smart Social Services for Mending the Gap in Development Inequalities

185

Modern technology, which today includes primarily ICT technology, can help with this. Bryant et al. (2018) point out that through information and communication technologies (ICTs), rural and remote communities are increasingly opened up to the possibilities of local, national, and global connections for business, consumption, entertainment, social relations, education, and health management. However, the question that also should be raised is about the capacity of social workers and social service providers in general to use modern technologies, the implications their application may have on the quality of social work, the resistance of professionals and users to collaborate in a virtual environment, and the range of ethical issues arising from such work. It should be noted that the development of longdistance services does not automatically address the problem of marginalisation of residents of remote, deprived communities, but can probably reduce them. Doxey and McNamara (2015) point out that in many parts of Australia, including the remote south-east, social work services remain largely unavailable. Rural and remote social workers in Australia typically confront a wide range of psychosocial problems but have very limited access to referral networks; options become fewer as remoteness increases. On the other side, Burmeister and Barkly (2016) emphasise that where technology can support social engagement, both for providers and recipients of mental health care, the recovery model helps to address issues of collective social responsibility and to understand the place of technology—not as a panacea that replaces the human, but as an important aid in the modern recovery process. Technology was seen to be able to contribute positively to overcoming physical and social barriers which currently impede mental healthcare outcomes. Yet technology alone is not a solution because the recovery process necessarily involves community social interaction. The same authors argue that the findings reveal that despite the challenges faced by rural and remote service providers, they themselves have suggested how technology can best assist them to increase their effectiveness. Aided by appropriate technology, they can better service their clients, better integrate them back into their communities, and thus facilitate the recovery process for overall well-being. Furthermore, as noted by Denkenberger et al. (2015), several policies can be implemented in isolated communities to foster distributed education and employment. First, free public libraries providing both a physical location and an educational foundation to support a learning community should be supported. These libraries can act as hubs for individuals who do not have access to the computers or the Internet connections needed to gain an education (which will itself enable the individual to afford these in the future for employment). Second, offering personal, free high-speed Internet access for all citizens should be a goal for all communities but is particularly important for isolated communities with a smaller fraction of their population with any personal Internet access. One of the important components of raising the quality of social services in remote, deprived, or disadvantaged communities is their integration. According to Munday (2010), the notion of integration applies to a range of approaches or methods to achieve greater coordination and effectiveness of different services in order to achieve improved outcomes for service users. These approaches include service coordination, collaboration, partnerships, and interdisciplinary or collaborative work. In its most

186

N. Žganec

complete form, integration refers to a unique system of planning and/or delivery of services, established and managed together with partners that remain legally independent. Greenberg (2004) argued that prevention to support child development is fundamentally a matter of integration: (a) integration between systems of care, that is, existing health, education, and childcare services (institutional structures not functionally integrated), (b) across levels of care and support (universal or targeted, including clinically oriented treatments), and (c) integration across developmental stages, to meet different developmental needs of children and their families at different stages. Similarly, Dempsey et al. (2011) stress that integration of a broad array of policies— including those focusing on economics, social welfare, education, the environment, and urban planning—is needed to strengthen social sustainability in cities. Duffy and Hutchinson (1997) emphasise that phrases such as participation, incorporation, empowerment, capacity building, and consultation all reflect a different emphasis on community involvement. Further, the lack of a really multidimensional approach to involvement is notable. A holistic approach to issues of deprivation should require the integration of health, housing, employment, education, and social protection policies. The fragmentation of the institutions and the local municipalities weakens the possibility of a broader strategic consensus and a mechanism to implement it. Litwak and Rothman (1970) defined three models of interorganisational practice based on the strength of the formality: formal, coordination, and linkage. Formal structures call for rules, linkages rely on coordinating mechanisms rather than rules, and informal groups rely on contacts between agencies involved. Bailey and Koney (1996) extended the strategy of “interorganizational community-based collaboratives” to the whole social work agenda, particularly as part of the devolution revolution, which has been put forward by scholars, legislators, and practitioners in the field. They proposed core components of interorganisational collaboratives and considered needed inputs for social work education and practice. Social work schools are challenged with the task to prepare future social work professionals to be familiar with the working principles of integrated and collaborative work in the communities as well as to familiarise future professionals with the concept of smart services. The era of globalised world asks for the new sensitivity of combining global commonalities and local features towards introducing of socalled glocal practice. Those communities which seem to be far of the influences of modernity (because they are underdeveloped or remote) are often very surprisingly strongly affected and become collateral victims of neglected or postponed development.

9.5  Conclusion Modern life is linked to the availability of numerous social services that provide security and a sense of protection against the many risks in everyday life. However, it seems that modern conditions do not apply to all residents and that today there are numerous places around the world that need specific strategies

9  Developing Smart Social Services for Mending the Gap in Development Inequalities

187

that will allow people to meet their needs. These facts should present a challenge for social work to find effective ways of developing cooperation and support systems. Developing social services in remote, deprived, and deprivileged communities is no easy task. In this regard, it should be borne in mind that social services are of particular importance not only to the individual and his family, but are also of particular importance to society as a whole. In remote communities, it is often very difficult to secure some standards of personal social services, such as ensuring personal interaction between providers and users. Social workers need to be able to devise different alternative ways of providing social services that will help community residents develop community resilience understood as those features of a community, which, in general, promote the safety of its residents, which serve to protect residents against injury and violence risks, and which allow residents to recover after exposure to general adversity and injury risks (Ahmed et  al. 2004). It is the task of social workers to understand the importance of community connectedness and personal support and to focus on reducing isolation. Community connectedness is a means of promoting resilience and adaptation in these regions, particularly when considering the impact of environmental adversity in rural areas (Kelly et al. 2011). When designing and setting up social services in remote, deprived communities, many issues have to be taken into account: the availability of professional resources such as trained social workers and other professional helpers, material resources such as a developed ICT network and other infrastructure, and some structural factors. Among the structural factors, the most important is legislation or the legal framework for long-distance service provision, as well as the possibilities of using public funds for the development of new services. It is also important to develop a network of volunteers and non-governmental organisations, which can be critically important in the design and delivery of social services. Social work faculties have a special responsibility to bring their students, future professionals closer to the issue of remote communities and to sensitise them to devise specific assistance strategies. As demonstrated in this chapter, well-connected, integrated, and coordinated processes of designing and delivering social services are critical to succeeding in addressing the many problems that residents of remote communities may face, especially given that they can reduce costs and raise levels of efficiency. Social workers should take on the role of coordinator of the process of integrating social services and suggest strategies how different professions could connect. In the past, numerous projects have already been implemented around the world to learn how communities can be developed through well-designed and planned community development processes. Social work and social workers in these processes can contribute to improving the quality of life of the citizens, significantly contribute to the development of their profession, and, of course, influence the improvement of social capital, raise the level of community resilience, improve the legal prerequisites for community development, and use the lessons learned as examples of good practice to be implemented around the world.

188

N. Žganec

References Afrobarometer. (2004). Lived poverty in South Africa: Desperation, hope and patience (Afrobarometer; Briefing Paper No. 11). Cape Town: Afrobarometer. Ahmed, R., Seedat, M., van Niekerk, A., & Bulbulia, S. (2004). Discerning community resilience in disadvantaged communities in the context of violence and injury prevention. South Africa Journal of Psychology, 34(3), 386–408. https://doi.org/10.1177/008124630403400304. Alkire, S., & Santos, M. E. (2010). Acute multidimensional poverty: A new index for developing countries (OPHI Working Paper No. 38). Oxford: Oxford Poverty and Human Development Initiative, University of Oxford. Andersen, H. S. (2008). Why do residents want to leave deprived neighbourhoods? The importance of residents’ subjective evaluations of their neighbourhood and its reputation. Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, 23(2), 79–101. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10901-008-9109-x. Bailey, D., & Koney, K. M. (1996). Interorganizational community-based collaboratives: A strategic response to shape the social work agenda. Social Work, 41(6), 602–611. https://doi. org/10.1093/sw/41.6.602. Barnes, J., Belsky, J., Broomfield, K.  A., Dave, S., Frost, M., & Melhuish, E. (2005). Disadvantaged but different: Variation among deprived communities in relation to child and family well-being. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 46(9), 952–962. https://doi. org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.2004.00392.x. Belcher, J. R., Deforge, B. R., & Jani, J. S. (2005). Inner-city victims of violence and trauma care. Journal of Health & Social Policy, 21(2), 17–34. https://doi.org/10.1300/J045v21n02_02. Bope, E. T., & Jost, T. S. (1994). Interprofessional collaboration: Factors that affect form, function, and structure. In R. M. Casto, M. C. Julia, L. J. Platt, G. L. Harbaugh, W. R. Waugaman, A. Thompson, T. S. Jost, E. T. Bope, T. Williams, & D. B. Lee (Eds.), Interprofessional care and collaborative practice (pp. 61–69). Pacific Grove: Brooks/Cole Publishing Company. Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. In J.  G. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of theory and research for the sociology of education (pp. 241–258). New York: Greenwood Press. Bryant, L., Garnham, B., Tedmanson, D., & Diamandi, S. (2018). Tele-social work and mental health in rural and remote communities in Australia. International Social Work, 61(1), 143– 155. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020872815606794. Burmeister, O. K., & Barkly, E. M. (2016). Rural and remote communities, technology and mental health recovery. Journal of Information, Communication and Ethics in Society, 14(2), 170–181. https://doi.org/10.1108/JICES-10-2015-0033. Dempsey, N., Bramley, G., Power, S., & Brown, C. (2011). The social dimension of sustainable development: Defining urban social sustainability. Sustainable Development, 19(5), 289–300. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.417. Denkenberger, D., Way, J., & Pearce, J. M. (2015). Educational pathways to remote employment in isolated communities. Journal of Human Security, 11(1), 34–44. https://doi.org/10.12924/ johs2015.11010034. Doxey, G., & McNamara, P. (2015). A new role for social work in remote Australia: Addressing psycho-social needs of families identified through financial counselling. International Social Work, 58(1), 32–42. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020872812461046. Duffy, K., & Hutchinson, J. (1997). Urban policy and the turn to community. The Town Planning Review, 68(3), 347–362. https://doi.org/10.3828/tpr.68.3.h74pggn2112838m2. Durkheim, E. (1951). Suicide. New York: Free Press. Field, J. (2003). Social capital. London: Routledge. Fitzpatrick, S. (2004, December 14). ‘Poverty of place’, keynote address to JRF centenary conference, ‘Poverty and place: Policies for tomorrow’, University of York. Franklin, C., & Streeter, C. L. (1995). School reform: Linking public schools with human services. Social Work, 40(6), 773–782. https://doi.org/10.1093/sw/40.6.773. Germain, C. B. (1984). Social work practice in health care: An ecological perspective. New York: The Free Press.

9  Developing Smart Social Services for Mending the Gap in Development Inequalities

189

Gillespie, J.  L. (2009). Family centers in rural communities: Lessons for policy, planning, and practice. Families in Society, 90(1), 96–102. https://doi.org/10.1606/1044-3894.3850. Grauwin, S., Szell, M., Sobolevsky, S., Hövel, P., Simini, F., Vanhoof, M., Smoreda, Z., Barabási, A.  L., & Ratti, C. (2017). Identifying and modeling the structural discontinuities of human interactions. Scientific Reports, 7, article no. 46677. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep46677. Greenberg, M.  T. (2004). Current and future challenges in school-based prevention: The researcher perspective. Prevention Science, 5(1), 5–13. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:P REV.0000013976.84939.55. Halseth, G., & Sullivan, L. (2002). Building community in an instant town: A social geography of Mackenzie and Tumbler Ridge. Prince George: UNBC Press. Holt-Jensen, A. (2000). Evaluating housing and neighbourhood initiatives to improve the quality of life in deprived urban areas. GeoJournal, 51(4), 281–291. https://doi.org/10.102 3/A:1012220903240. Hsiao, S., & Schmidt, G.  G. (2015). Chinese immigrant women in remote northern communities: Adjustment and social support networks. Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment, 25(2), 115–125. https://doi.org/10.1080/10911359.2014.947463. International Federation of Social Workers (IFSW). (2014). Global definition of social work. http://ifsw.org/policies/definition-of-social-work/. Accessed 03 Mar 2020. Itzhaky, H., & York, A. S. (2002). Showing results in community organization. Social Work, 47(2), 125–131. https://doi.org/10.1093/sw/47.2.125. Kelly, B. J., Lewin, T. J., Stain, H. J., Coleman, C., Fitzgerald, M., Perkins, D., Carr, V. J., Fragar, L., Fuller, J., Lyle, D., & Beard, J. R. (2011). Determinants of mental health and well-being within rural and remote communities. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology, 46(12), 1331–1342. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00127-010-0305-0. Klasen, S. (1997). Poverty and inequality in South Africa: An analysis of the 1993 SALDRU survey. Social Indicators Research, 41, 51–94. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1006892216864. Klasen, S. (2000). Measuring poverty and deprivation in South Africa. Review of Income and Wealth, 46(1), 33–58. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-4991.2000.tb00390.x. Lee, J. (2001). The empowerment approach to social work practice: Building the beloved community. New York: Columbia University Press. Litwak, E., & Rothman, J. (1970). Towards the theory and practice of coordination between formal organizations. In W. P. Rosengren & M. Lipton (Eds.), Organizations and clients: Essays in the sociology of service (pp. 137–186). Columbus: Charles E. Merrill Publishing Company. Matous, P. (2017). Complementarity and substitution between physical and virtual travel for instrumental information sharing in remote rural regions: A social network approach. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 99, 61–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2017.02.010. Matous, P., Yasuyuki, T., & Mojo, D. (2013). Boots are made for walking: Interactions across physical and social space in infrastructure-poor regions. Journal of Transport Geography, 31, 226–235. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2013.04.001. Mattes, R., Bratton, M., & Davids, Y.  D. (2003). Poverty, survival and democracy in Southern Africa. Afrobarometer. https://afrobarometer.org/publications/wp23-poverty-survival-anddemocracy-southern-africa-2003. Accessed 31 Mar 2020. Munday, B. (2010). Integrated social services in Europe. Strasbourg: Council of Europe Publishing. Netting, F. E., Kettner, P. M., & McMurty, S. L. (2004). Social work macro practice (3rd ed.). Boston: Pearson. Noble, M., & Wright, G. (2013). Using indicators of multiple deprivation to demonstrate the spatial legacy of apartheid in South Africa source. Social Indicators Research, 112(1), 187–201. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-012-0047-3. Noble, M., Barnes, H., Wright, G., & Roberts, B. (2010). Small area indices of multiple deprivation in South Africa. Social Indicators Research, 95(2), 281–297. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s11205-009-9460-7.

190

N. Žganec

Oudin Åström, D., Franks, P. W., & Sundquist, K. (2018). Neighborhoods and mortality in Sweden. Is deprivation best assessed nationally or regionally? Demographic Research, 38(18), 429–450. https://doi.org/10.4054/DemRes.2018.38.18. Parsons, T., & Shils, E. (1952). Toward a general theory of action. New York: Harper Torchbooks. Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. New York: Touchstone. Reismann, F. (1964). Mental health of the poor. New York: The Free Press. Rich, R. C., Edelstein, M., Hallman, W. K., & Wandersman, A. (1995). Citizen participation and empowerment: The case of local environmental hazards. American Journal of Community Psychology, 23(5), 657–676. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02506986. Room, G. (1998). Beyond the threshold: The measurement and analysis of social exclusion. Bristol: Policy Press. Saegert, S., & Winkel, G. (1996). Paths to community empowerment: Organizing at home. American Journal of Community Psychology, 24(4), 517–550. https://doi.org/10.1007/ BF02506795. Skifter Andersen, H. (2008). Why do residents want to leave deprived neighbourhoods? The importance of residents’ subjective evaluations of their neighbourhood and its reputation. Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, 23(2), 79–101. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10901-008-9109-x. Terashima, M., Rainham, D. G. C., & Levy, A. R. (2013). Should we enhance the commonly used deprivation index for a regional context? Canadian Journal of Public Health, 104(4), e311-6. https://doi.org/10.17269/cjph.104.3763. Tonnies, F. (1955). Community and association. London: Routledge/Kegan Paul. UNDP. (1996). Human development report 1996. Oxford: Oxford University Press. UNDP. (2003). South Africa: Human development report 2003  – The challenge of sustainable development in South Africa: Unlocking people’s creativity. Cape Town: Oxford University Press Southern Africa. Vichi, M. (1997). Identifications of standards of living and poverty. Pescara: University of Chieti, Italy. Wacquant, L. (1998). Negative social capital: State breakdown and social destitution in America’s urban core. Netherlands Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, 13(1), 25–40. Retrieved October 15, 2020, from http://www.jstor.org/stable/41107730. Weil, M. (1996). Model development in community practice. Journal of Community Practice, 3(3–4), 5–67. https://doi.org/10.1300/J125v03n03_02. Weil, M. (2005). Introduction: Contexts and challenges for 21st-century communities. In M. Weil (Ed.), The handbook of community practice (pp.  4–33). Thousand Oaks: SAGE. https://doi. org/10.4135/9781452220819.n1. Woolcock, R. (1998). Social capital and economic development: Toward a theoretical synthesis and policy framework. Theory and Society, 27, 151–208. https://doi.org/10.102 3/A:1006884930135. Zimmerman, M. A., & Rappaport, J. (1988). Citizen participation, perceived control, and psychological empowerment. American Journal of Community Psychology, 16, 725–750. https://doi. org/10.1007/BF00930023. Zimmerman, M. A., & Zahniser, J. H. (1991). Refinements of sphere-specific measures of perceived control: Development of a socio-political control scale. Journal of Community Psychology, 19, 189–204. https://doi.org/10.1002/1520-6629(199104)19:23.0 .CO;2-6.

Part III

Supporting Social Work Practice in Deprived Communities

Chapter 10

Social Work Higher Education Institutions: Allies of Most Vulnerable Communities Carmen Luca Sugawara and Ana Opačić

10.1  Introduction The rise of service-learning education among higher education institutions (HEI) is a result of the ongoing criticism of universities for losing their public role and historical commitment to service (Demb and Wade 2009). This is in part due to a lack of congruency between the contemporary social problems that exist in our communities and the university curricula, an increased public distrust in the university’s role in fostering public good, and a decrease in the civic engagement and the social responsibilities of college students (Chamber 2005; Cohen 1998; Ehrlich 2000; Giroux 2003). For social work education, service-learning pedagogy is embraced as a close platform that promotes one of the key values of the profession – that of service. Through such pedagogy of learning, students have an opportunity to integrate the “theoretical and conceptual… [content]… of the classroom learning with the practical world of practice setting” (Council on Social Work Education’s Educational Policy and Accreditation Standards [CSWE EPAS] 2015, p.12.) while serving. This direct engagement with local communities (clients, organizations, or polices) give students not only a prospect to build professional competencies through the use of critical thinking pedagogy and interaction with the external world, but also a platform to serving local communities. As social workers are called to defend groups and communities that are most vulnerable, in this paper, we argue that social work service-learning education can become a critical ally in strengthening the capacity of vulnerable communities. Special attention is given to the role of technology in facilitating social change C. L. Sugawara (*) Indiana University School of Social Work, Indianapolis, IN, USA e-mail: [email protected] A. Opačić Faculty of Law, Department of Social Work, University of Zagreb, Zagreb, Croatia e-mail: [email protected]

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 A. Opačić (ed.), Practicing Social Work in Deprived Communities, European Social Work Education and Practice, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-65987-5_10

193

194

C. L. Sugawara and A. Opačić

among vulnerable groups. We define vulnerable communities as group of individuals with a decreased ability to self-guard their well-being due to adverse socioeconomic and environmental factors impacting their lives. As social work educators, who teach and work on developing students’ competencies in community participation, leadership development, and macro-practice, engaging with vulnerable communities could also lead to the empowerment and development of new capacities within the learning target communities. This is in part to social work’s bottom-up approach to development (Ife 2012), where community members become active participants of the (helping/development) process; it is also supported by the empowerment approach in which community members build on their capacities, dreams, and resources (Saleebey 2002). For over a century, universities have been recognized as central social institutions for building human capital and paving the road to democracy (Dewey 1916; Freire 1970). The scholarship on civic engagement and service learning illustrates the roles that universities play in shaping student competencies in citizenship, as well as enhancing students’ critical thinking and their ability to learn and transform oneself while addressing community challenges (Deans 1999; Ehrlich 2000; Pompa 2005; Rosenberger 2000). When working with vulnerable communities, especially in post-war context marginalized communities, service-learning education allows social work students to engage with a new learning context and invites the host learning community members to participate in co-creation of new experiences for the students, themselves, and their community. In doing so, the student participants have an opportunity to understand first-hand mechanisms that perpetuate social exclusion, harm, and increased high-risk behaviours among community members. In contrast, the vulnerable communities have new opportunities to tell their stories and lived experiences and participate in building new community bridges central to strengthen those involved in the educational partnership, having the potential to further strengthen vulnerable communities’ capacity for development. The chapter introduces the relationship between local capacity for community development (LCCD) and university programmes. Responding to critical challenges, we discuss a possible central role that social work HEIs with communityengaged programmes may play in strengthening local community capacities among vulnerable groups. Building on a social justice approach to service learning (BoyleBraise and Langford 2004), we propose a rights-based approach in working with vulnerable populations informed by human rights principles and community-based research. By developing service-learning courses with a social justice orientation, the social work HEIs have a unique opportunity to empower vulnerable communities and engage its members in local issues while strengthening their own communities’ capacities to address local challenges.

10.2  L  ocal Capacity for Community Development and Higher Education: An Overlooked Relationship Local capacity for community development represents the social processes through which individuals, community groups, and organizations maintain, strengthen, and develop local capabilities to function and to improve community

10  Social Work Higher Education Institutions: Allies of Most Vulnerable Communities

195

well-being for long term (Adapted from Morgan 1998; UNDP 2009). The operationalization of this concept uses three key dimensions: (1) community characteristics, (2) functioning capacity, and (3) transformational capacity (Luca Sugawara 2020). These dimensions are synergistically dependent on one another, reminding us that community well-being result from multidimensional, nonlinear, and ongoing social processes among assets, stakeholders, resources, local capabilities, and their contributions to community life. Specifically, it is an exercise of power that could help local communities address their own challenges and help local communities act on their self-identified challenges or opportunities (Girgis 2007). Local capacity for community development has the potential to especially empower vulnerable communities to engage and achieve their own purposes (OECD-DAC 2010 as cited in Huyse et  al. 2012). However, when power dynamics are skewed in favour of the political elite, several questions remain undressed: How can these dynamics be altered and governance structures be changed to allow for civic participation in decision-making processes and foster community ownership among those vulnerable community members? How can communities become empowered to challenge and dismantle oppressive structures that disconnect vulnerable community members from resource allocation and accessibilities to social structures that would allow them to choose to act and be in a community? (Sen 1985) Local universities have the potential to play a central role in promoting longlasting and substantive democracy. For young people to be involved, they need to be taught about democracy and to develop critical thinking competencies and democratic skills including dialogue and deliberation, collaborative problemsolving, reflection, and democratic participation (Colby et al. 2003, 2007; Longo 2007; Thomas 2011). They require a conscientization process, fostered in the classroom and exercised in the community. Though higher education institutions are historically charged with civic responsibilities (Dewey 1916) and the advancement of public good, just as communities cannot stand alone, universities cannot act alone. It is the relationship and the partnership between the community and the higher education institution that provides a platform for learning and an opportunity to engage in civic work that is meaningful and awakening through conscientization in understanding the injustices and challenges of the day (Freire 1970). Service-learning pedagogy is an important educational venue that connects the university’s assets with the local communities. Civic engagement and service learning as the pedagogy of engagement have been widely examined in the academic literature (Felten and Clayton 2011). Yet, the link between local universities and LCD has not been made explicit or seen as a pragmatic approach to building local capacity and strengthening local partnerships. To elucidate the potential role universities have in building democracy and promoting local capacity in vulnerable communities, we discuss the relationship between civic engagement service learning and the gains they may bring to LCCD.

196

C. L. Sugawara and A. Opačić

10.3  C  ivic Education, Service Learning, Community-Based Research, and Local Capacity for Community Development in Vulnerable Communities Although universities have been recognized for a century as central social institutions in paving the road to democracy, it is only in the past two decades that scholars began to articulate the role that universities play in shaping student competencies in citizenship, critical thinking abilities, and the ability to engage students to learn while addressing community challenges (Ehrlich 2000). Civic engagement is working to make a difference in our communities’ civic life and develop the combination of knowledge, skills, values, and motivation to make that difference. It means promoting the quality of life in a community, through both political and nonpolitical processes (Ehrlich 2000, p. 6). As a pedagogy of engagement, service learning emerged to connect both disciplinary learning and general education with academies in civic life. It is embraced as a mechanism for community engagement and higher-impact pedagogy at undergraduate and graduate levels (Felten and Clayton 2011). It is a course-based, credit-bearing educational experience in which students learn from being engaged in direct community projects, reflecting on the engaged activity to understand course content, and by doing so they have an opportunity to enhance their sense of personal values and civic responsibility (Bringle et al. 2006). When utilized, this pedagogical approach to learning and engagement shows a positive effect on student retention and graduation (Astin and Sax 1998; Gallini and Moely 2003; Roose et al. 1997) and an impact on student learning outcomes such as strengthening critical thinking skills, deepening the complexity of understanding the real world, and cognitive development (Eyler et al. 1998, 2001; Eyler and Giles 1999; Osborne et al. 1998). Service learning contributes to students’ personal development such as increasing interpersonal skills, enhancing the ability to work with others, developing communication skills, social awareness, personal identity, spiritual growth, cultural awareness, and tolerance for diversity (Conway et  al. 2009; Eyler et  al. 2001; Kezar 2002). In working with vulnerable communities, social work students also have an opportunity to build advocacy skills to defend vulnerable groups and economic and political forces that further marginalize and isolate those in need (Gitterman and Sideriadis 2014). The literature points to the importance of treating community organizations not as simple spaces for educational laboratories, but as key vehicles for learning and social change (Felten and Clayton 2011) and local capacity strengthening. To effectively model a pedagogy of true engagement, universities cannot charge students to “fix” or address social challenges that they alone identify. It is the dialogue, the collaboration, and the engagement with community member organizations that define meaningful service projects. The power of decision is shared with the community, and in doing so, the partnerships between universities and collaborative community organizations are based on reciprocity, and commitment, all which contribute to potential empowerment and development of trust with local communities.

10  Social Work Higher Education Institutions: Allies of Most Vulnerable Communities

197

Unlike student outcomes in civic engagement alone, service-learning projects’ impact on community organizations and communities is less frequently documented. When engaging in service-learning projects with nonprofit organizations, some scholars point to clear institutional capacity-building outcomes (Bushouse 2005), such as incorporating new project ideas and inter-organizational strategies or expanding the pool of solutions to local problems. Others (Barrientos 2010) point to specific outcomes such as service delivery enhancement, increased number of clients served, and some economic gains that came from students’ abilities to help leverage financial resources to benefit the host community organizations. More consistently is the outcome on partnership formation. Community service-learning initiatives help build a formal linkage between the university and the community, solidify community partnerships through understanding the benefits of partnerships (Bacon 2002; Gelmon 2003), and assist community organizations in building social capital (Gittell and Avis 1998). Furthermore, service-learning courses have an opportunity to strengthen local community’s functioning capacity, through the promotion of leadership development, extension of social networks, and involvement of community members in decision-making processes with the university (Luca Sugawara et al. 2013). In doing so, not only community members’ capacities have the potential to improve, but the overall community’s transformational capacity  – that of engaging and promoting systemic changes with a clear vision and sustained positive change (Luca Sugawara 2020). Ultimately, universities can become allies of vulnerable communities through their use of research capacity, especially (participatory) community-based research (CBR). This type of research is a growing field (Dick 2009) with the goal of bringing research practice closer to real-life problems generated within communities and accordingly ‘reducing the path’ from discovery to implementation. This is especially present in healthcare topics and in research addressing the position of various social groups and vulnerable communities (Dick 2009; Jacquez et  al. 2013; Shalowitz et al. 2009). Community-based participatory research is the common and partnership work of researchers and local stakeholders which also includes citizens (Fröding et al. 2014; Jacquez et al. 2013; Morgan et al. 2014) and is based in the specific local situation. They belong to a post-positivistic tradition of research, as is the case with action research, and endeavour to reduce or eliminate the boundaries between the researcher and research topic (Morgan et  al. 2014). This wider scope of approach includes concepts such as community-involved research, community-centred research, community-based action research, and community participatory action research (Morgan et al. 2014). Key principle of community-based research is collaboration, making sure that the research/er is not inflicting harm on the host community, endeavouring to obtaining knowledge of various sources and have the goal of advocating social change and social justice (Institute for Civic and Community Engagement 2020). Collaboration between researchers and local stakeholders is achieved through the entire research project from setting the goals and research questions up to implementation and dissemination of results (Rosenthal et  al. 2014). These types of researches are especially considered acceptable for implementing in minority and

198

C. L. Sugawara and A. Opačić

vulnerable communities, because these groups in large samples are underrepresented (Fröding 2014). In addition, vulnerable communities have less often any benefit from research because they less often participate in them due to the lack of resources (Yapa and Bärnighausen 2018). Given that this research approach endeavours to reach those segments of the population which are more often left out in classic research, numerous authors agree that presenting neglected aspects and giving a voice and also power to those who most often do not have them are two of the most noticeable benefits of the CBR approach (Fröding et al. 2014; Pratt 2019). Additionally, this research approach encourages mutual learning between the academic and local communities (Fröding et al. 2014). What has the particular practical importance is that the community is part of co-constructing the knowledge (Jacquez et  al. 2013; Morgan et  al. 2014). When communities are involved, the interventions developed are more likely to become sustainable and easily accepted by the local groups (Morgan et al. 2014). Implementation of the CBR approach includes collaboration between scientists in all phases of the research process, from the first evaluation of the community, defining the problem, and collecting data to analysing the data, interpretation, and dissemination (Jacquez et al. 2013). In practice, however, collaboration in all phases is not equally represented; hence, we can say that there is more or less participatory research. Given the importance of citizens’ representation of community members in community-based research initiatives, the issue of equal representation is of great importance. To avoid participation of a few who have aggregated local power, it becomes important to achieve equal inclusion, ensure a diverse group of collaborators, clearly convey specific benefits for the community, and encourage heterogeneous leadership and coordination of research process (Shalowitz et  al. 2009). Furthermore, dissemination of research findings must reach the entire community through public forums (Morgan et al. 2014). Considering that social work is a localized profession (Healy 2008) that recognizes service, social justice, importance of relations, and competence as central values for practice and considering the benefits and opportunities that an engaged university may have in strengthening local capacity development, it is important to contextualize and clarify the role that social work higher education might have in supporting and promoting local capacity for community development among vulnerable communities.

10.4  R  eflection on the Promising Principles: Social Work Education and Local Capacity for Community Development Two promising principles in social work practice help articulate the unique role that social work can play in promoting local capacity for community development in vulnerable communities – they are engagement and sustainability. Both principles,

10  Social Work Higher Education Institutions: Allies of Most Vulnerable Communities

199

exploring the engagement processes and developing local leadership, align with the human rights framework. They are used in critically reflecting on the role of social work education and capacity building (see Table 10.1). Within a human rights paradigm, communities become directly involved in shaping their own social identities. For vulnerable communities, involving universities to participate with their local members requires a close delineation of programme outcomes. Implicit in this paradigm is that local communities establish their own definitions for the various problems they face, all the while with their role trusted by the HEIs organizations. Community organizations participating in such learning opportunities also take the driver’s seat to prioritize interventions and operationalize well-being as the ultimate aim of any local development endeavour. Within this context, it is through complex community development processes that the community identifies its needs and goals, finds resources that can be used to address these challenges, takes action in respect to these challenges, and develops partnerships and cooperation with HEIs and other entities identified as central to promoting the well-being of communities (Ross 1967, p.  28 as cited in Hardcastle et  al. 2011,

Table 10.1  Promising principles for service-learning social work education within a human rights framework Promising principles for service-learning SW education Engagement: Who owns the work? Outsider versus local inclusion

Sustainability through local leadership development

Human rights principles Participation Increase participation of local universities/ social work schools in the development aid processes Increased LCD project support for academiccommunity dyads Identification of local partners as leaders in community projects Student involvement in community-based practice through course work assignments Support of communityuniversity capacity-building grants

Accountability Create clear mechanisms of accountability, creating ownership among local leaders/ institutions Increase trust

Accountability towards local universities – investing in capacity building and leadership development Universities’ accountability towards local communities – to further build leadership in the community

Universality and indivisibility of human rights Human rights are indivisible – in content and in processes – and inclusion becomes a prerogative in ensuring the right to representation for all

Participation in decisionmaking should follow the principles of universality, and nondiscrimination, and support the development of local capacity – to ensure sustainable impact

200

C. L. Sugawara and A. Opačić

p. 2). In doing so, the vulnerable communities engaged in service-learning and community-based research address the participation and accountability dimensions of the human rights framework, if fully engaged in the process (see Table 10.1). Building on Ross’ statement, community practice in social work focuses on leveraging the existing assets in a community and its surroundings and crafts its interventions based on the capacities, resources, and potential of a community group. This points not only to the strengths perspective that the social work profession embraces when working with individuals, families, and communities, but also to the value of sustainability in the change process (Saleebey 2002). In the strengths-based approach, clients are seen as experts on their own situations. Social work professionals’ roles focus on collaboration and partnership (Early and Glen Maye 2000 as cited in Gatenio Gabel 2016). The importance of collaboration and that of working with, not for, a community is also thoroughly (Ife 2012) work on Human Rights from Below: Achieving Rights Through Community Development. Ife calls for building communities from within by expanding on Saleebey’s (2002) strengths perspective. He reminds social work practitioners of the importance of designing community interventions based on local expertise with local community members to ensure the promotion of sustainable community practice. When vulnerable community members are invited to give voice to local challenges and design new interventions that affect one’s own community life, they will continue to care and be part of the change process beyond a programme’s life. They will be empowered; they will be building capacity from within and the ability to delineate new goals for their own communities. Therefore, by designing service-learning courses as part of social work education, especially in partnership with post-war vulnerable groups, the profession has the potential to build building blocks to strengthen local capacity to improve their community well-being. Furthermore, universities can become allies of vulnerable communities through the means of technology addressed next in this chapter.

10.5  T  he Role of HEIs in Strengthening Professional Development of Social Workers in Vulnerable Communities Higher education institutions were, and continue to be, important allies in resolving issues present in vulnerable communities throughout the world, such as an insufficient number of professionals and professional isolation of those professionals who work in vulnerable communities. Berman (2006) points to two barriers to including professionals in the life of a community, that is, remoteness and cultural incompatibility between professionals and inhabitants, especially in culturally homogenous, minority, or indigenous communities. Remoteness as an obstacle is related to the concept of the tyranny of space (Meir 1985 in Berman 2006). It reminds us that the environment of vulnerable communities is often remote from urban centres and without adequate or any road and transport infrastructure. Due to an insufficient number of professionals to serve such communities, professionals often take responsibilities outside their working role, or paraprofessional are trained to fill this gap. This leads to a point of jeopardizing the

10  Social Work Higher Education Institutions: Allies of Most Vulnerable Communities

201

quality of social services offered in vulnerable communities. Additionally, there is visible professional isolation, meaning that they are distanced from the sources of training, communication with the professional community, and availability of supervision, as well as decision-making sources. Thomas and Clark (2007) asserted that there are nonetheless certain factors which are appealing to professionals in these communities and which include opportunities for flexible work which is quicker, more holistic, and more creative than in urban communities. Also, better opportunities are offered for collaboration and mediation in the community due to a smaller number of included actors. Better opportunities are offered for developing cultural competences, and becoming familiar with various cultures in a deeper and more personal manner, it is possible to achieve deeper inclusion in the life of the community. Social worker has the possibility of developing certain personal capacities because work in such communities requires continual adoption of new roles (considering that specializations do not exist) and the possibility of reflecting on one’s own experiences. Considering that most social workers would most likely have an opportunity to work with vulnerable groups in their lifetime, it remains the university’s responsibility to provide educational opportunities for social work students to engage and work with such remote vulnerable groups. The solution for these kinds of challenges is most often seen in increasing the number of local professionals who are aware of the specific situations and come from the very communities we target to serve. Targeted recruitment of future students and providing scholarship programmes are the first step in that direction (Benton and Iglesias 2018). However, even when resources for education outside of the community exist, students often cease to be motivated to return and continue working in vulnerable communities from which they come (Trujillo et al. 2018). Other sources of building social work students’ capacity to work with vulnerable communities are to offer service-learning programmes. Lastly, increasing the proportion of local professionals in working with vulnerable communities is the use of digital technologies in education. Specifically, technology can ensure availability and flexibility in education (Berman 2006; Bryant et  al. 2015; Kilpeläinen et  al. 2011; Schmidt 2000; Trujillo et al. 2018). The use of digital technologies in education should be diverse and inclusive. Especially important is to have the hybrid programmes which offer a combination of online and face-to-face education. It is important for students coming from vulnerable communities to include them in peer interactions and prevent their isolation (Huff 2000). Furthermore, digital technologies enable professionals working with vulnerable communities to exit professional isolation, whereas higher education institutions can organize professional training programmes, remote supervision, and networking models (Mitchell et al. 2000; Rees et al. 2018; Schmidt 2000). Based on evaluation of stakeholders in such programmes, Mitchell et  al. (2000) state that technology enables flexibility in participation along with less job absenteeism. Digital availability of educational content on common platforms is especially useful for strengthening competences (Rees et al. 2018). However, vulnerable communities have their own limitations regarding Internet and technological infrastructure. Furthermore, linguistic constraints remain important for accessing online education. Specifically, digital technologies are often not linguistically adapted to heterogeneous language groups, and often a proficiency in the English language is necessary (Rees et al. 2018).

202

C. L. Sugawara and A. Opačić

Finally, even though digital technologies under the right conditions can be properly available, technology need not be the only solution which will eliminate direct communication and which is something that neither students nor professionals want to give up (Rees et al. 2018). Therefore, higher education institutions and the professional community should support models of direct communication and contact with potential and existing professionals in vulnerable communities.

10.6  Recommendations for Social Work Education By building on a rights-based approach to social work, service-learning pedagogy in a vulnerable community setting provides opportunities for social work students and faculty to identify and deconstruct the mechanisms of oppression through participating in community dialogue, assessing the degree to which collective human rights are protected and realized, and fostering partnerships that have the potential to generate innovative ways to address social challenges (Gatenio Gabel 2016; Healy 2008; Mapp 2014). The difference between a rightsbased and a needs-based approach to social work community practice resides in the core definitions used: Needs are subjective, and if not met, there is no immediate resolution to address them. However, when rights are violated, there must be a process in place to claim them and correct the violations. The rights-based approach to social work practice shifts the focus from human needs to human rights calling on social work practitioners, educators, and the community members to actively participate in the decision-making process of the state so that the state can better serve the interests of the population (Gatenio Gabel 2016). A rights-based approach “empowers individuals to claim their rights within a universal, normative framework that…applies to all human beings” (Gatenio Gabel 2016, p. 12). Lastly, building on the two engagement and sustainability principles for social work service-learning programmes, a rights-based approach to social work practice and service to the community shifts the focus from service imposed on communities to a community-based approach to change. By promoting service-learning centres that apply a rights-based approach to community services, the capacity to influence the power dynamic between the funding source and the vulnerable local community is greatly enhanced. A social work rights-based approach begins with claiming the rights of the vulnerable group and uses that framework to build capacity at the local level by committing partnerships and resources to protect and realize these rights. The following core principles of a rights-based approach (Androff 2015; UDHR 1948) will be employed to working with vulnerable post-war communities: • Universality. • Indivisibility. • Non-discriminatory principle becomes imperative and guides policymaking. Participation between the main duty bearers of government and civil society is an

10  Social Work Higher Education Institutions: Allies of Most Vulnerable Communities

203

important goal, with local higher education institutions partnering with community organizations to strengthen civil society. • Accountability for all stakeholders involved towards protecting and realizing vulnerable communities (including faculty and students, as well as other organizations and community leaders as accountable partners). “Unlike needs, rights imply responsibilities, and responsibilities create accountability” (UN OHCHR 2002, as cited in Gatenio Gabel 2016, p. 10). Accountability to the service-learning partnership gives power to community CSO members to assess its value and relevance in addressing community challenges and realizing and protecting human rights. This value holds the higher education institutions responsible for the type of engagement and impact students may have in their service-learning settings. For Croatia, a country that is known for its weak higher education institution community-engaged programmes (Ćulum 2014), economic disparities, and weak social capital among community members and institutions, strengthening the social work programme and initiating service-learning components will not effectively function without developing accountability mechanisms that will support service learning as a way to strengthen community capacity. Capacity is both strengthened and shared. For example, when developing strong universitycommunity partnerships, community organizations have access to university capital such as technology, physical space, and expertise. Thus, supporting community-engaged partnerships allows reallocating resources in vulnerable communities which in turn could contribute to challenge the root cause of social injustice. It is in this context developing Centers for Service and Learning within the university system would help build the capacity of faculty and departments to design courses that can connect the academic goals with the wider civic purpose of universities while serving vulnerable communities. Center for Service and Learning can be a centrally located base for many community-university efforts. Whether through syllabus development or community-partnership formation, these centres could play a central role in building the capacity of the university to address local challenges/needs while educating students to engage with local communities using a rights-based social change approach. When universities are strong and stay engaged with local communities, especially those vulnerable, human and social capital strengthens, local challenges become foci for local solutions, and local community capacity provides the local assets on which sustainable community development practices are built. Within a rights-based approach, the attention will shift from community deficits and members’ vulnerabilities to existing strengths and assets, as instrumental in protecting people’s rights and shaking the social injustice structures that weaken local communities.

204

C. L. Sugawara and A. Opačić

10.7  Conclusion This chapter discussed the role that social work education can play in strengthening local capacity development in vulnerable communities. Building on the higher education’s role in fostering civic participation and socially responsible citizens, service-learning education, community-based research, and technology are introduced as potential allies to strengthening local capacity in vulnerable communities. Using a human rights approach to social work education, we propose supporting the creation of Center for Service and Learning units in higher education institutions, with social work service-learning courses and community-engaged research projects that could help build capacity and contribute to diminishing local mechanisms of oppression while fostering community partnerships and solutions to local challenges based on individual rights, not community deficits.

References Androff, D., (2015). Practicing rights: human rights-based approaches to social work practice. New York: Routledge. Astin, A.  W., & Sax, L.  J. (1998). How undergraduates are affected by service participation. Service Participation, 39(3), 251–263. http://digitalcommons.unomaha.edu/slcehighered. Bacon, N. (2002). Differences in faculty and community partners’ theories of learning. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 9(1), 34–44. http://hdl.handle.net/2027/ spo.3239521.0009.104. Barrientos, P. (2010). Community service learning and its impact on community agencies: An assessment study. San Francisco State University, Institute for Civic and Community Engagement, Community Service-Learning Program. Benton, A. D., & Iglesias, M. (2018). “I was prepared for the worst I guess”: Stayers’ and leavers’ perceptions of their title IV-E education. Journal of Public Child Welfare, 12(3), 264–280. https://doi.org/10.1080/15548732.2018.1446067. Berman, G. S. (2006). Social services and indigenous populations in remote areas. International Social Work, 49(1), 97–106. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020872806059406. Boyle-Baise, M., & Langford, J. (2004). There are children here: Service learning for social justice. Equity and Excellence in Education, 37(1), 55–66. https://doi. org/10.1080/10665680490422115. Bringle, R., Hatcher, J., & McIntosh, R. (2006). Analyzing Morton’s typology of service paradigms and integrity. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 13(2), 5–15. http://hdl. handle.net/2027/spo.3239521.0013.101. Bryant, L., Garnham, B., Tedmanson, D., & Diamandi, S. (2015). Tele-social work and mental health in rural and remote communities in Australia. International Social Work, 61(1), 143– 155. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020872815606794. Bushouse, B. (2005). Community nonprofit organizations and service-learning: Resource constraints to building partnerships with universities. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 12(1), 32–40. http://hdl.handle.net/2027/spo.3239521.0012.103. Chamber, T.  C. (2005). The special role of higher education in society: As a public good for the public good. In A. J. Kezar, A. C. Chamber, & J. C. Burkhardt (Eds.), Higher education for the public good: Emerging voices from a national movement (pp. 3–22). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

10  Social Work Higher Education Institutions: Allies of Most Vulnerable Communities

205

Cohen, A. (1998). The shaping of American higher education: Emergence and growth of the contemporary system. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Colby, A., Ehrlich, T., Beaumont, E., & Stephens, J. (2003). Educating citizens. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Colby, A., Beaumont, E., Ehrlich, T., & Corngold, J. (2007). Educating for democracy: Preparing undergraduates for responsible political engagement. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Conway, J. M., Amel, E. L., & Gerwien, D. P. (2009). Teaching and learning in the social context: A meta-analysis of service learning’s effects on academic, personal, social, and citizenship outcomes. Teaching of Psychology, 36(4), 233–245. https://doi.org/10.1080/00986280903172969. Council on Social Work Education. (2015). Educational policy and accreditation standards. https://www.cswe.org/getattachment/Accreditation/Standards-and-Policies/2015EPAS/2015EPASandGlossary.pdf.aspx. Accessed 10 May 2020. Ćulum, B. (2014). Academics and service to the community: An international (European) perspective. In W. K. Cummings & U. Teichler (Eds.), The relevance of academic work in comparative perspective (pp. 139–162). Dordrecht: Springer. Deans, T. (1999). Service-learning in two keys: Paulo Freire’s critical pedagogy in relation to John Dewey’s pragmatism. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 6(1), 15–29. http:// hdl.handle.net/2027/spo.3239521.0006.102. Demb, A., & Wade, A. (2009). A conceptual model to explore faculty community engagement. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 15(2), 5–16. http://hdl.handle.net/2027/ spo.3239521.0015.201. Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education: An introduction to the philosophy of education. New York: Macmillan. Dick, B. (2009). Action research literature 2006–2008. Action Research, 7(4), 423–441. https:// doi.org/10.1177/1476750309350701. Ehrlich, T. (2000). Civic responsibility and higher education. Phoenix: Oryx. Eyler, J., & Giles, D.  E., Jr. (1999). Where’s the learning in service learning? San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Eyler, J., Root, S., Giles, D., & E. (1998). Service-learning and the development of expert citizens: Service-learning and cognitive science. In R. G. Bringle & D. K. Duffy (Eds.), With service in mind: Concepts and models for service-learning in psychology (pp. 85–100). Washington, DC: American Association for Higher Education. Eyler, J., Giles, D. E., Jr., Stenson, C. M., & Gray, C. J. (2001). At a glance: What we know about the effects of service-learning on college students, faculty, institutions and communities, 19932000. Higher Education, 2001, 1–120. Felten, P., & Clayton, P. (2011). Service-learning. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 128, 75–84. https://doi.org/10.1002/tl.470. Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Continuum. Fröding, K., Elander, I., & Eriksson, C. (2014). A community-based participatory research process in a poor Swedish neighbourhood. Systemic Practice and Action Research, 28(1), 19–36. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11213-014-9319-y. Gallini, S., & Moely, B. (2003). Service-learning and engagement, academic challenge, and retention. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 10(1), 5–14. http://hdl.handle. net/2027/spo.3239521.0010.101. Gatenio Gabel, S. (2016). A rights-based approach to social policy (Springer briefs in rights-based approaches to social work). Cham: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-24412-9_1. Gelmon, S. (2003). Assessment as a means of building service-learning partnerships. In B. Jacoby & Associates (Eds.), Building partnerships for service-learning (pp. 42–64). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Girgis, M. (2007). The capacity-building paradox: Using friendship to build capacity in the south. Development in Practice, 17(3), 353–366. https://doi.org/10.1080/09614520701336782.

206

C. L. Sugawara and A. Opačić

Giroux, H. A. (2003). Youth, higher education, and the crisis of public time: Educated hope and the possibility of a democratic future. Social Identities, 9(2), 141–168. https://doi.org/10.1080 /1350463032000101533. Gittell, R., & Avis, V. (1998). Community organizing: Building social capital as a development strategy. Thousand Oaks: Sage. Gitterman, A., & Sideriadis, L. (2014). Social work practice with vulnerable and resilient populations. In A. Gitterman (Ed.), The handbook of social work practice with vulnerable and resilient populations (3rd ed.). New York: Columbia University Press. Hardcastle, D. A., Powers, P. R., & Wenocur, S. (2011). Community practice: Theories and skills for social workers. New York: Oxford University Press. Healy, L. M. (2008). Exploring the history of social work as a human rights profession. International Social Work, 51(6), 735–746. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020872808095247. Huff, M. T. (2000). A comparison study of live instruction versus interactive television for teaching MSW students critical thinking skills. Research on Social Work Practice, 10(4), 400–416. https://doi.org/10.1177/104973150001000402. Huyse, H., Molenaers, N., Phlix, G., Bossyut, J., & Fonteneau, B. (2012). Evaluating NGO capacity development interventions: Enhancing frameworks, fitting the (Belgian) context. Evaluation, 8(1), 129–150. https://doi.org/10.1177/1356389011430372. Ife, J. (2012). Human rights from below: Achieving rights through community development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Institute for Civic and Community Engagement. (2020). Differences between community-based research, community-based participatory research, and action research. https://icce.sfsu. edu/content/differences-between-community-based-research-community-based-particpatoryresearch-and. Accessed 15 June 2020. Jacquez, F., Vaughn, L. M., & Wagner, E. (2013). Youth as partners, participants or passive recipients: A review of children and adolescents in community-based participatory research (CBPR). American Journal of Community Psychology, 51(1–2), 176–189. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10464-012-9533-7. Kezar, A. (2002). Assessing community service learning: Are we identifying the right outcomes? About Campus, 7(2), 14–20. https://doi.org/10.1177/108648220200700204. Kilpeläinen, A., Päykkönen, K., & Sankala, J. (2011). The use of social media to improve social work education in remote areas. Journal of Technology in Human Services, 29(1), 1–12. https:// doi.org/10.1080/15228835.2011.572609. Longo, N. (2007). Why community matters: Connecting education with civic life. Albany: SUNY Press. Luca Sugawara, C. G. (2020, July 12–15). Strengthening local capacity for community development through community engaged programs. Paper presented at the Third European conference on service-learning in higher education. What does it mean to be (come) an engaged university? Bratislava, Slovakia. Luca Sugawara, C. G., Hermoso, J. C., Popescu, M. L., & Dichter, T. W. (2013). Strengthening democracy through local capacity development: The case of Moldova. Social Work Review, 2, 1–13. Mapp, S. (2014). Human rights as a framework for teaching international social work. In K. Libal, S. M. Berthold, R. Thomas, & L. M. Healy (Eds.), Advancing human rights in social work education (pp. 103–120). Alexandria: CSWE Press. Mitchell, J., Robinson, P., Seiboth, C., & Koszegi, B. (2000). An evaluation of a network for professional development in child and adolescent mental health in rural and remote communities. Journal of Telemedicine and Telecare, 6(3), 158–162. https://doi. org/10.1258/1357633001935257. Morgan, P. (1998). Capacity and capacity development  – Some strategies. CIDA. http://nsagm. weebly.com/uploads/1/2/0/3/12030125/strategies_for_capacity_development_cida_1998.pdf. Accessed 10 June 2020.

10  Social Work Higher Education Institutions: Allies of Most Vulnerable Communities

207

Morgan, D., Crossley, M., Stewart, N., Kirk, A., Forbes, D., D’Arcy, C., Dal Bello-Haas, V., McBain, L., O’Connell, M., Bracken, J., Kosteniuk, J., & Cammer, A. (2014). Evolution of a community-based participatory approach in a rural and remote dementia care research program. Progress in Community Health Partnerships: Research, Education, and Action, 8(3), 337–345. https://doi.org/10.1353/cpr.2014.0040. Osborne, R., Hammerich, S., & Hensley, C. (1998, January 5–13). Student effects of service-learning: Tracking change across a semester. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning. Retrieved from https://quod.lib.umich.edu/m/mjcsl/3239521.0005.101/1 Pompa, L. (2005). Service-learning as crucible: Reflections on immersion, context, power, and transformation. In D.  Butin (Ed.), Service-learning in higher education (pp.  173–192). New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Pratt, B. (2019). Inclusion of marginalized groups and communities in global health research priority-setting. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 14(2), 169–181. https:// doi.org/10.1177/1556264619833858. Rees, J., de Villiers, T., Livingston, W., Maegusuku-Hewett, T., & Prysor, G. (2018). A new distance learning national framework for social work continuing education: Critical reflections on the first phases of implementation. Social Work Education, 37(6), 761–774. https://doi.org/10. 1080/02615479.2018.1479383. Roose, D., Daphne, J., Miller, A. G., Norris, W., Peacock, R., White, C., & White, G. (1997). Black student retention study: Oberlin College [Unpublished manuscript]. Oberlin College, Oberlin. Rosenberger, C. (2000). Beyond empathy: Developing critical consciousness through service learning. In C. O’Grady (Ed.), Integrating service learning and multicultural education in colleges and universities (pp. 23–43). Mahwah: Erlbaum. Rosenthal, M.  S., Barash, J., Blackstock, O., Ellis-West, S., Filice, C., Furie, G., Greysen, S. R., Malone, S., Tinney, B., Yun, K., & Lucas, G. I. (2014). Building community capacity: Sustaining the effects of multiple, two-year community-based participatory research projects. Progress in Community Health Partnerships: Research, Education, and Action, 8(3), 365–374. https://doi.org/10.1353/cpr.2014.0049. Saleebey, D. (2002). Power in the people. In D. Saleebey (Ed.), The strengths perspective in social work practice (3rd ed., pp. 1–22). Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Schmidt, G.  G. (2000). Remote, northern communities. International Social Work, 43(3), 337– 349. https://doi.org/10.1177/002087280004300306. Sen, A. (1985). Well-being, agency and freedom: The Dewey lectures 1984. Journal of Philosophy, 82(4), 169–221. Shalowitz, M.  U., Isacco, A., Barquin, N., Clark-Kauffman, E., Delger, P., Nelson, D., Quinn, A., & Wagenaar, K. A. (2009). Community-based participatory research: A review of the literature with strategies for community engagement. Journal of Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics: JDBP, 30(4), 350–361. https://doi.org/10.1097/DBP.0b013e3181b0ef14. Thomas, N. (2011). Educating for deliberative democracy: New directions for higher education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Thomas, Y., & Clark, M. J. (2007). The aptitudes of allied health professionals working in remote communities. International Journal of Therapy and Rehabilitation, 14(5), 216–220. https:// doi.org/10.12968/ijtr.2007.14.5.23539. Trujillo, K., Bruce, L., & Obermann, A. (2018). The future of online social work education and title IV-E child welfare stipends. Journal of Public Child Welfare, 12(3), 317–332. https://doi. org/10.1080/15548732.2018.1457588. UNDP. (2009). Capacity development: A UNDP primer. New York: United Nations Development Programme. http://www.undp.org/content/dam/aplaws/publication/en/publications/capacity-development/capacity-development-a-undp-primer/CDG_PrimerReport_final_web.pdf. Accessed 15 June 2020. UN-OHCHR. (1948). Universal declaration of human rights. https://www.ohchr.org/en/udhr/ documents/udhr_translations/eng.pdf Accessed 15 May 2020. Yapa, H. M., & Bärnighausen, T. (2018). Implementation science in resource-poor countries and communities. Implementation Science, 13(1), 154. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-018-0847-1.

Chapter 11

Culture and Resource Scarcity: Social Work Practice in Canada’s Remote Communities Glen Schmidt

It may seem unusual to include a chapter on social work practice in underdeveloped communities in Canada. However, Canada is a country where development is somewhat uneven and some places are noticeably less well developed than others. Many of these communities are located in remote parts of the country where infrastructure and services are limited and social work practice requires particular skills and strategies to be effective. This chapter will discuss some of those skills and strategies and provide brief information on development and underdevelopment within Canada, including the social and environmental context for social work in these remote areas.

11.1  Underdevelopment and Development in Canada In political, social and economic terms, the concept of underdevelopment is usually associated with countries or regions where there is a low standard of living, limited economic activity and poor services in education, health care and social welfare. The United Nations avoids a precise definition of underdevelopment, probably because the term carries many pejorative connotations. However, the Department of Economic and Social Affairs of the United Nations Secretariat (2014) compiles a list that labels countries as having developed economies, economies in transition or developing economies. Not surprisingly, Canada is listed as a major developed economy. Similarly, the Social Progress Index (Social Progress Imperative 2018), which examines factors related to social and environmental health, ranks Canada sixth among the world’s nations. By most standards, Canada seems to be a highly developed country.

G. Schmidt (*) School of Social Work, University of Northern British Columbia, Prince George, BC, Canada e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 A. Opačić (ed.), Practicing Social Work in Deprived Communities, European Social Work Education and Practice, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-65987-5_11

209

210

G. Schmidt

It has a system of publicly funded health care, excellent public education, high levels of literacy, low unemployment and fairly extensive social welfare programmes, and its citizens have a high life expectancy. While the social welfare system is not as well developed compared to some of the European countries, the Canadian system provides a range of services through the federal, provincial, Indigenous and municipal governments, as well as non-government organizations and private organizations. At first glance, a casual observer might be inclined to say that underdevelopment does not exist in Canada. However, that is not the case.

11.2  Remote Communities and Underdevelopment Canada is the second largest country in the world, and although population growth in recent years has been the highest among the G7 countries, the population remains relatively low at just under 38 million people (Statistics Canada 2019). About 72% of the residents live within 150 km of the border with the United States. If one considers that there are a few large cities and urban concentrations outside that range, Edmonton and Saskatoon, for example, it becomes clear that vast areas of the country are sparsely populated. Just under 82% of Canada’s people live in urban areas (Statista 2019). Underdevelopment in Canada is a factor in communities that are considered remote; that is, they are isolated and have difficulty accessing services. Many of these communities are single-industry towns, meaning that there is limited economic diversification and there is dependence on one major employer usually engaged in resource extraction. Many of the Indigenous communities in Canada are also underdeveloped and exhibit high rates of unemployment, limited economic opportunities and poor health and social services. In northern parts of the country, the distance between communities can be substantial, and some remote communities are not accessible by road or rail. Most of the communities in the arctic regions are only accessible by air year-round. For coastal arctic communities, the shipping season is limited by the duration of the ice pack. In parts of the northern territories of Nunavut, Northwest Territories and Yukon, as well as the northern and remote parts of some provinces, winter roads provide limited access to remote communities. Winter roads are built across frozen ground, lakes and rivers when the temperature drops, and heavy trucks can move along these transportation corridors. This type of access is critical as building supplies, fuel and food need to be brought into the communities when the lower-cost transportation window is available. Climate change has lengthened the shipping season for arctic communities as the ice pack is not as thick and break-up of the ice is earlier. However, communities that depend on winter roads have seen the season shorten considerably as winters are not as cold or as long. A transportation window that might have lasted 4  months may now be greatly reduced to a few weeks. Climate change drives up the cost of building new houses, schools and health clinics. In some cases, more supplies have to be flown in, and this is very expensive.

11  Culture and Resource Scarcity: Social Work Practice in Canada’s Remote…

211

The small size and remote locations of many northern communities generally result in a lack of basic health and social services that urban Canadians take for granted. Birth services are one example of this. Many of Canada’s remote communities, whether Indigenous or non-Indigenous, tend not to have obstetric services. This lack of service requires an expectant mother to travel a long distance away from her home community in order to receive care and give birth. For example, the community of Flin Flon in northern Manitoba is a remote community where copper and zinc have been mined since 1927. The community has about 5000 residents, and it is accessible by an all-season paved road as well as regular air transportation. However, there are no obstetric services in the town, and in 2018, 150 expectant mothers had to fly or drive 700  km to Winnipeg to receive care and give birth (Canadian Broadcasting Corporation 2019). Specialist services are in short supply in remote areas, and in fact there is a general shortage of doctors in northern areas. Even in Ontario, Canada’s wealthiest and most populous province, the northwestern area of the province has a doctor shortage, and the 800,000 people that live in this vast area have poorer health outcomes with a life expectancy 3 years shorter than the average life expectancy in the province as a whole (Newberry 2018). This situation is replicated in many of the remote parts of Canada. It is especially acute in Indigenous communities, which face numerous social and health challenges. The average life expectancy for all Canadian men is just over 79 years, and for all Canadian women it is 83 years. By contrast, life expectancy for Inuit men is 64 years, and for Inuit women it is 73 years. Métis and First Nations men have an average life expectancy of 74 years and Métis and First Nations women live to be just under 80 years (Statistics Canada 2017). A major concern for some Indigenous communities is the lack of a safe supply of fresh drinking water. In many respects this fact is ironic given that Canada ranks fourth among world countries in terms of fresh water resources (World Atlas 2019). Canada’s supply of fresh water accounts for 9% of the total world freshwater resources (Biro 2007). Lane and Gagnon (2019) note that long-term boil water advisories remain in effect for 56 Indigenous communities across Canada. This number is lower than it was in 2015 as the Liberal government elected in 2015 pledged to eliminate the boil water advisories by 2021. In fact, the federal government has achieved some success in this pledge. For example, Indigenous Services Canada (2020) reported that 88 long-term drinking water advisories have been lifted since 2015. Even with this progress, there are communities that have been without safe drinking water for more than 25 years. White et al. (2012) note that the access to clean drinking water is not just due to a lack of expenditure but also to the legacy of colonialism and problems with organization and regulatory frameworks. Factors such as those described above help to create an uneven pattern of development in Canada. Urban centres and the more heavily populated rural south are highly developed in terms of health and social services, economic diversification and infrastructure. However, more remote parts of the country exhibit characteristics that are associated with a lower level of development. This became blatantly apparent to me early in my social work career. I recall having a conversation with a nurse who worked at a nursing station and clinic in a remote Indigenous community

212

G. Schmidt

accessible only by air or winter road. The nurse had recently started work in the community after spending several years working for a charity organization in a poor Central American country. She said that the poverty and the poor health of the people in the remote Canadian Indigenous community were more severe than anything she had encountered in Central America. One of the challenges faced by social workers is that their training and education tend to take place in urban areas as that is where the universities are located. Many Canadian social workers that graduate with their Bachelor of Social Work degree or Master of Social Work degree have never set foot in a remote Indigenous reserve or spent time in a remote single industry community. As a result, they may not be prepared to practice effectively in an environment that is isolated and relatively underdeveloped within the Canadian context. Social workers working in remote Canadian communities require knowledge and skills different from their urban and southern rural counterparts.

11.3  The Context for Social Work Practice The concept of positionality is an important component of contemporary social work education and practice. Positionality involves understanding how ethnicity, class, gender, sexuality, ability, religion and other factors create our identity and biases (Fisher 2015; Seymour 2015). Positionality is integral to our personal worldview. It is also a good starting point in social work education and in beginning social work practice. Social workers need to be self-aware and understand how they are privileged in relation to the people they serve. In addition to this personal reflection, social workers also need to understand how their profession is viewed by people who live within communities that are remote and relatively underdeveloped compared to the urban Canadian south.

11.3.1  Indigenous Communities Social workers working with Indigenous communities face a number of challenges given the legacy of social work and Indigenous people in Canada. The challenges include social work’s association with residential schools as well as child welfare practices that separated children from their culture and communities and resulted in high numbers of Indigenous children coming into state care. It is a long and detailed history which cannot be adequately discussed in this short chapter. However, for those unfamiliar with Canadian history, a number of the experiences are important to understand.

11  Culture and Resource Scarcity: Social Work Practice in Canada’s Remote…

213

Canada still has an Indian Act. This colonial and race-based piece of legislation was first passed in 1876, and it gave the federal government complete power over Indigenous people. It should be noted that the Indian Act refers to First Nations and not Inuit or Métis. The Indian Act treated all Indigenous First Nations people as one single homogenous group even though they represented diverse languages, traditions and cultures. The intent of the government was to assimilate First Nations people and a number of amendments to the Act legislated methods to do this. Perhaps the most significant example was an amendment in 1894 that required First Nations children to attend residential school. Children were removed from their home communities and sent away to schools run by churches on behalf of the federal government. The children were separated from their families for 10 months of the year, forbidden to speak their language or practice traditional ceremonies, and large numbers of children were subjected to physical and sexual abuse in the church-­ run schools (Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada 2015). Social work was complicit in this as the body representing professional social workers, the Canadian Association of Social Workers (CASW), presented a brief to the federal government supporting and promoting the residential school system (Jennissen and Lundy 2011). A second practice that strained the relationship between social workers and Indigenous people is what Patrick Johnston (1983) called ‘the sixties scoop’. As the residential schools began to close in the 1950s and 1960s, Johnston noted that social workers were removing Indigenous children in disproportionate numbers. The children were often placed for adoption with non-Indigenous families, and many were placed outside of Canada in the United States and European countries. While social work was centrally involved in this practice, Kimelman (1985) noted that the entire child welfare system, including administrators, judges, lawyers and social workers, brought an intense cultural bias to bear on their work with Indigenous families and communities. The sixties scoop was not so much a formal policy as it was an approach to practice heavily steeped in colonialism. The social workers believed that they were creating an opportunity for Indigenous children to have a better life away from the poverty of their home community. Clearly Canadian social work has a troubled history with Indigenous people. In 2019 the CASW formally apologized to the Indigenous people of Canada for its role in supporting the residential school system and its affirmation of child welfare practice that led to the sixties scoop. Nonetheless, social workers must understand the reasons why they may be viewed with a certain amount of mistrust, apprehension and even hostility within Indigenous communities. Poverty, high rates of incarceration and large numbers of children entering state care continue to be major challenges.

214

G. Schmidt

11.3.2  Remote Single Industry Towns Although underdevelopment is most acute within some of the isolated Indigenous communities, it is also apparent within the remote single industry towns that are scattered throughout the northern and remote parts of Canada. The towns are developed in order to exploit a particular resource. These days the resources are typically minerals and hydrocarbons, and although opportunities for women are increasing, males remain the primary employees. Lucas (1971) first noted the nature of development in Canadian single industry towns and described four phases that the towns go through: construction, recruitment, transition and maturation. During the first two phases, health and social welfare resources are minimal as the communities tend to have limited infrastructure and the population may be very transient. Workers come from other countries as well as various parts of Canada. Communities impacted by resource development, whether in Canada or other countries, may struggle with a lack of services, gender imbalances and higher rates of crime (Ruddell 2012). This is not unique to Canada as a number of Australian and American researchers have written about similar social effects of resource development and boom towns where one tends to see hyper masculinity, limited social resources, higher crime rates and a decline in general safety for women (Berger and Beckmann 2010; Carrington et al. 2010, 2011). Social work in Canada is a predominantly female profession, and female workers may run into bias and lack of acceptance based on their gender. It is also important to recognize that life in single-industry towns can be precarious due to the nature of the economy. A decline in global demand for a particular commodity can lead to rapid economic decline, extensive layoffs and even closure of the town. Social workers in the communities are usually employed by a government department, and that means they have a reasonable amount of job security. For industry and service workers in the community, this is not the case, and there is potential to create a further division between the social worker and community residents based on job security. Another factor that is important in relation to single-industry resource towns is the practice of long-distance commuting (LDC) or fly-in fly-out work (FIFO). In some single-industry towns, many workers may not be permanent residents of the community. They work in the community for various lengths of time and then return to their home town. Increasingly, mining companies are not developing townsites at newly developed mines as it is more cost-effective to transport workers to the site, particularly if the ore body is likely to have a shorter life span. The LDC workers create a number of challenges for social workers as they may not have any immediate supports or networks that can be utilized when an individual faces challenges of a health or social nature. The LDC lifestyle also has effects on the worker’s partner who is left behind (Whalen and Schmidt 2016). Usually the partner is female, and if children are involved, she has to function as a single parent for periods of time. There is also the challenge of adjustment when her male partner returns from the remote work site.

11  Culture and Resource Scarcity: Social Work Practice in Canada’s Remote…

215

11.3.3  Place and Space An important element of context is the physical environment and its influence on social work practice. The physical environment includes elements such as living space as well as climate and weather. Zapf (2009) noted that models of social work, such as the ecological model, talk about social work in the environment, but the use of the word environment tends to be narrowly confined to the social environment, while the physical environment is largely ignored. In fact, the physical nature of the environment is critically important in remote social work practice. Certainly, in urban social work practice there are location, physical or spatial elements that have some impact and effect on the work. For example, congestion in an urban environment may influence how a social worker plans the work day, especially social workers that make home visits or spend time in the community. However, environmental factors play an even more important role in remote communities. In Canada social work with underdeveloped communities usually takes place in remote and isolated parts of the country. The environment can be challenging, especially during the long winters, and social workers require skills that are not a common consideration in social work education. Travel on long isolated stretches of road can be fatal for anyone who does not have winter survival skills and the necessary emergency supplies to manage for a number of hours if your vehicle is stuck or breaks down. Collier (1993) noted that the ability to change a tire might be one of the more effective skills for the social worker in a remote setting. Social workers in remote areas pay particular attention to the weather as a winter blizzard with heavy snowfall can present major challenges for travel and safety. The idea of the environment is also important when it comes to personal and professional aspects of the work. Some social workers are itinerant and do not reside in the communities they serve. This has implications for practice and community acceptance of the social worker as the itinerant nature of their work suggests to permanent residents that the social worker is not really invested in their lives or their community. On the other hand, social workers that live in a small isolated community also face challenges that are quite different from practice in large urban settings. In small remote communities, social workers find that they are highly visible and accessible. Professional space and personal space become very difficult to separate. Given their high visibility, social workers can expect to be under scrutiny, and they may be held to some higher standard than other community members. An American social worker, Barbara Fenby (1978), wrote a brief article about the lack of privacy in small rural communities in the United States. The same concepts and ideas have been expressed from other national perspectives when it comes to practice in isolated rural and remote communities (Delaney et al. 1997; Green and Lonne 2005; Pugh and Cheers 2010; Turbett 2010). The challenges of high visibility and public scrutiny go hand in hand with challenges around dual or multiple relationships. Dual or multiple relationships are simply any relationship outside the professional work relationship. For example, the social worker might participate in some recreational sport, and one or more of the

216

G. Schmidt

social worker’s teammates could be receiving service from the social worker. It is easy to understand that in small isolated communities, it is impossible for a social worker to avoid interacting with the people they serve. In a community development approach to practice this is not usually a complicated or uncomfortable issue as the client is typically the community or a large group within the community. Engagement with community members is extremely important in community development work. However, the reality for many social workers in remote, underdeveloped communities in Canada is that they use a generalist model of practice and deliver a range of programmes and services. The services usually include statutory programmes such as child welfare and probation, as well as highly sensitive services such as mental health and personal counselling. Programmes like child welfare and probation are frequently involuntary, and there can be an adversarial element that may make contact outside the work environment uncomfortable for the social worker and the client (Schmidt 2017). Understanding the context for remote social work practice in comparatively underdeveloped communities is a necessary first piece of learning for social workers interested in this type of work. It is not for everyone. The social worker from a large urban centre who is accustomed to attending professional theatre, attending professional sports and having access to a wide range of services, retail outlets, healthcare specialists and efficient public transportation may find that work in a remote community is not for him/her. On the other hand, this type of work can be challenging and very interesting. It requires a different approach to social work with particular skills and different expectations.

11.4  Practice Skills 11.4.1  Assessment A critical and important component of social work practice is the assessment. Whether the social worker is engaged in community development, advocacy, activism, statutory work or clinical work, it is imperative to develop an assessment that is as clear and comprehensive as possible. There are advantages and disadvantages in conducting assessments in remote underdeveloped communities. It is extremely important to become familiar with the history of the community. When I practiced as a social worker in northern Manitoba, one of the things our department set as a priority was to create community profiles. The development of profiles about the communities that we served was a collaborative effort involving all of the workers as well as community partners. Community profiles provide a succinct summary of facts about a community – facts which are important for effective social work practice. The profile includes a history of the community, information on geography and climate, local government structure, important cultural and social events for the community, vehicles for communication (some remote

11  Culture and Resource Scarcity: Social Work Practice in Canada’s Remote…

217

Canadian communities do not have cell or mobile access), economic indicators such as major employers, transportation, employment rates, income, housing stock, distribution of economic resources and the degree of economic equality and inequality. The profile also uses statistical data to look at demographic factors such as the age profile of community residents, gender, ethnicity, religious affiliation, school age population and levels of education. Health data examines life expectancy, birthrate, causes of death and prevalence of diseases and health conditions. An inventory of agencies, organizations and other community resources such as elder care, child care resources, faith communities, police, fire and emergency responders is also developed. Given the relatively small size of remote communities in Canada, this type of information can be gathered fairly easily and compiled into a document that is shared with the community and used by social workers as they assess the need and demand for services. When I worked in northern Manitoba, we updated this information every 2 years. It was useful for experienced social workers and especially important for new social workers who lacked familiarity with communities in the region. In conducting assessments, it is important for the social worker to demonstrate a sense of humility and respect. Assessments of individuals for statutory or clinical services are somewhat easier than conducting the same assessments in large urban areas. A social worker who has spent any amount of time in the community will be familiar with the residents, their families and their social networks. The social worker will usually have a working relationship with collateral resources such as doctors, nurses, teachers and others who can provide additional information relevant to the person needing service. Just as social workers are highly visible to community members, so too are community members highly visible to the social worker. In large urban centres, a social worker may not see their client outside of the work setting, and the social worker may not have a relationship with collateral resources that can add to an understanding of the challenges faced by the individual and the degree of support available to the person by way of family and social networks. In a large urban setting, a lot of the information compiled in an assessment will be based on direct information and observation relative to the person seeking service. If a person is not a reliable historian and if they are suspicious or hostile toward the social worker, it can be difficult to develop a full picture of what is going on in the person’s life. In social development work and project-focused work, the assessment process is also somewhat easier. Social workers may still have to deal with provincial or territorial and federal bureaucracies, but at the local level access to municipal or Indigenous officials is much easier, and because of the smaller size of the community there is a better chance of recognizing and understanding the positions of interested parties. Stakeholders can be more readily identified and included in the process. It is also important to situate the assessment within the context familiar to the individual or group. For example, urban trained social workers are often accustomed to assessing poverty based on monetary measures. However, this approach does not adequately consider non-monetary factors that influence the quality of life.

218

G. Schmidt

So-called country economies include material elements that are obtained directly from the land and don’t have a clear monetary value attached to them. For example, a family may live in a remote area and fish or hunt, preserve the wild meat, pick and preserve berries, tend a vegetable garden and cut firewood to heat their home. Social workers unfamiliar with rural and northern lifestyles in remote underdeveloped communities may not consider this as part of the family’s overall resources and simply see the family as poor because their income is low.

11.4.2  Intervention and Change An accurate assessment increases the likelihood that an intervention and change strategy will be effective. There are of course challenges associated with work in remote developing communities. Specialized resources may be very limited or even non-existent, and this increases the necessity for social workers to be generalists in their approach. The social worker should be able to provide basic life skills and counselling support to the person with a serious and persistent mental illness as readily as they can work with a local group to develop a proposal and advocate for specialized housing that meets the needs of elderly people in the community. It isn’t easy to develop this breadth of practice skills and knowledge, but there are things that a social worker can do to gain competence in their work. First, it is important to understand that social workers are not alone even in communities where there may only be one social worker. Indigenous communities in Canada existed long before settler populations arrived, and within the Indigenous communities there were natural helpers. Natural helpers are lay people that others in the community respect and turn to for advice and support (Israel 1985). Social workers need to become aware of natural helpers and develop relationships with them. That being said, there are some important points of difference between natural helpers and professional social workers that have potential to cause problems. For example, natural helpers do not have the same requirements around confidentiality, whereas professional social workers have to adhere to a code of ethics in which maintaining confidentiality is a clear requirement. Social workers that are not part of the local culture may not understand the nuances and requirements of working with a natural helper. In Indigenous communities there are protocols, and there may be particular ceremonies associated with engaging a natural helper such as a traditional healer (Dobson and Schmidt 2015). Nonetheless, natural helpers can be an important resource, and the social worker needs to learn who the helpers are and develop respectful relationships with those natural helpers. It is easy to become discouraged when needed resources are not available in the community. Rather than see this as a deficit, social workers need to imagine possibilities and pursue those options when they arise. When I worked as the coordinator of a community mental health programme in a remote northern mining community, I lamented the fact that we didn’t have supportive housing or a day programme for the people that used our service. However, I always looked for opportunities. In one

11  Culture and Resource Scarcity: Social Work Practice in Canada’s Remote…

219

budget cycle, the provincial government announced funds for non-governmental agencies to develop community-based supportive programmes for people with severe and persistent mental illness. This was the perfect opportunity, but the community didn’t have a non-governmental agency of this nature that could develop and deliver the service. Rather than give up in frustration, I worked with a number of community residents to develop a non-profit organization that could apply for the funds and operate the services. The process was successful, and more than 30 years later the organization remains active offering supportive housing, an emergency shelter for homeless people, public education and family support groups. Intervention also requires an openness and willingness to work with other disciplines. As social workers we don’t always take the time to learn about other disciplines such as nursing or teaching. A multidisciplinary approach to practice is often essential to successful intervention. Social workers need to not only develop relationships and understanding of natural helpers but also understand other disciplines and become comfortable working with people from those disciplines. This happens in urban settings such as hospitals, but it is even more important in remote communities that are underdeveloped in terms of resources and services. A social worker new to a remote community has to be especially careful to avoid making a serious mistake when they first begin their practice. This may seem obvious, but in an urban setting where there is a degree of anonymity and where the social worker may have many co-workers, a mistake can be addressed without the social worker losing their credibility and reputation. It is more challenging in small remote communities as the social worker is under a fair amount of public scrutiny. If she or he makes a mistake, it may be difficult to recover and develop credibility within the community. It is important to proceed carefully and exercise caution. It is a time to rely on close supervision, but there can be challenges in accessing supervision due to the demands that are placed on supervisors in remote social work practice (Blackman and Schmidt 2014; Schmidt 2008). In smaller communities, supervisors may not be on site and could be located several hundred kilometres away. Regular contact can be difficult. In some situations, there may be one social worker in a community, and the community is their employer. In cases like this, the social worker may not even have a supervisor or at least a supervisor who is also a social worker and understands the nature of their work. In these circumstances the social workers need to find access to supervision and have that access approved by their employer. Good supervision can be an important source of support.

11.5  Summary Underdevelopment is a reality in Canada, particularly in the northern and remote parts of the country. In order to be effective, social workers need to have a clear understanding of the community or communities in which they work. This is true of isolated rural areas in other countries throughout the world as social workers face

220

G. Schmidt

many of the same challenges as described in remote parts of Canada. The social worker needs to be comfortable living and working in small isolated communities where resources are limited and the social worker is always highly visible to community members. Social workers also need to be aware of how social work and social workers are regarded in the community based on current and historical experiences. It is important to exercise humility and a willingness and openness to learn from community members. With a lack of specialized resources, the social worker in a remote underdeveloped community needs to understand the importance of natural helpers, and the social worker needs to be opportunistic in order to access funding for programmes when funding becomes available. Generalist social work skills tend to be most effective in this type of work as the practice approach required is broad and not specialized or confined to one narrow field. The work is challenging but also exceptionally rewarding and important.

References Berger, J., & Beckmann, J. (2010). Sexual predators, energy development, and conservation in greater Yellowstone. Conservation Biology, 24(3), 891–896. https://doi. org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2010.01449.x. Biro, A. (2007). Water politics and the construction of scale. Studies in Political Economy, 80(1), 9–30. https://doi.org/10.1080/19187033.2007.11675080. Blackman, K., & Schmidt, G. (2014). The development of child protection supervisors in northern British Columbia. Child Welfare, 92(5), 87–105. Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. (2019). ‘Moms are put at risk every day’: Flin Flon Manitoba still without birth services one year later. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/obstetrics-care-flin-flon-1.5362853. Accessed 01 Dec 2019. Carrington, K., McIntosh, A., & Scott, J. (2010). Globalization, frontier masculinities and violence: Booze, blokes and brawls. British Journal of Criminology, 50(3), 393–413. https://doi. org/10.1093/bjc/azq003. Carrington, K., Hogg, R., & McIntosh, A. (2011). The resource boom’s underbelly: Criminological impacts of mining development. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 44(3), 335–354. https://doi.org/10.1177/0004865811419068. Collier, K. (1993). Social work with rural peoples (2nd ed.). Vancouver: New Star Books. Delaney, R., Brownlee, K., Sellick, M., & Tranter, D. (1997). Ethical problems facing northern social workers. The Social Worker, 65(3), 55–65. Department of Economic and Social Affairs of the United Nations Secretariat. (2014). World economic situation and prospects. https://www.un.org/en/development/desa/policy/wesp/wesp_ current/2014wesp_country_classification.pdf. Accessed 01 Dec 2019. Dobson, C., & Schmidt, G. (2015). Traditional carrier approaches to mental health. Canadian Journal of Community Mental Health, 34(2), 23–35. https://doi.org/10.7870/cjcmh-2015-018. Fenby, B. (1978). Social work in a rural setting. Social Work, 23(2), 162–163. Fisher, K. (2015). Positionality, subjectivity, and race in transnational and transcultural geographic research. Gender, Place and Culture, 22(4), 456–473. https://doi.org/10.1080/09663 69X.2013.879097. Green, R., & Lonne, B. (2005). ‘Great lifestyle, pity about the job stress’: Occupational stress in rural human service practice. Rural Society, 15(3), 252–266. https://doi.org/10.5172/ rsj.351.15.3.253.

11  Culture and Resource Scarcity: Social Work Practice in Canada’s Remote…

221

Indigenous Services Canada. (2020). Ending long-term drinking water advisories. https://www. sac-isc.gc.ca/eng/1506514143353/1533317130660. Accessed 13 July 2020. Israel, B. (1985). Social networks and social support: Implications for natural helper and community level interventions. Health Education Quarterly, 12(1), 65–80. https://doi. org/10.1177/109019818501200106. Jennissen, T., & Lundy, C. (2011). One hundred years of social work: A history of the profession in English Canada 1900–2000. Waterloo, ON: Wilfred Laurier Press. Johnston, P. (1983). Native children and the child welfare system. Ottawa: Canadian Council on Social Development. Kimelman, E. (1985). No quiet place. Winnipeg: Manitoba Community Services. Lane, K., & Gagnon, G. (2019, September 24). The lack of clean drinking water in Indigenous communities is unacceptable. Globe and Mail. Retrieved from https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-the-lack-of-clean-drinkng-water-in-indigenous-communities-is/. Accessed 24 Sep 2019. Lucas, R. (1971). Minetown, Milltown, railtown: Life in Canadian communities of single industry. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Newbery, S. (2018). Northern Ontario badly needs doctors. But forcing them to work there is no solution. Healthy Debate. https://healthydebate.ca/opinions/northern-ontario-doctors. Accessed 01 Dec 2019. Pugh, R., & Cheers, B. (2010). Rural social work: An international perspective. Bristol: The Policy Press. Ruddell, R. (2012). Boomtown policing: Responding to the dark side of resource development. Policing, 5(4), 328–342. https://doi.org/10.1093/police/par034. Schmidt, G. (2008). Geographic location and social work supervision in child welfare. Journal of Public Child Welfare, 2(1), 91–108. https://doi.org/10.1080/15548730802237353. Schmidt, G. (2017). Social work practice in remote communities. Ronkonkoma, NY: Linus Learning. Seymour, K. (2015). Politics and positionality: Engaging with maps of meaning. Social Work Education, 34(3), 275–285. https://doi.org/10.1080/02615479.2014.962504. Social Progress Imperative. (2018). Social progress index. https://www.socialprogress.org/. Accessed 01 Dec 2019. Statista. (2019). Canada: Degree of urbanization from 2007 to 2017. https://www.statista.com/ statistics/271208/urbanization-in-canada/. Accessed 01 Dec 2019. Statistics Canada. (2017). Life expectancy. https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/89645-x/2010001/life-expectancy-esperance-vie-eng.htm. Accessed 01 Dec 2019. Statistics Canada. (2019). The Daily. https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/daily-quotidien/190930/ dq190930a-eng.htm. Accessed 01 Dec 2019. Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada. (2015). Honouring the truth, reconciling for the future. Ottawa: Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada. Turbett, C. (2010). Rural social work practice in Scotland. Birmingham: British Association of Social Workers. Whalen, H., & Schmidt, G. (2016). The women who remain behind: Challenges in the LDC lifestyle. Journal of Rural Society, 25(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/10371656.2016.1152037. White, J., Murphy, L., & Spence, N. (2012). Water and indigenous peoples: Canada’s paradox. The International Indigenous Policy Journal, 3(3). https://doi.org/10.18584/iipj.2012.3.3.3. World Atlas. (2019). Which country has the most fresh water. https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/ countries-with-the-most-freshwater-resurces.html. Accessed 01 Dec 2019. Zapf, M. K. (2009). Social work and the environment: Understanding people and place. Toronto: Canadian Scholars’ Press.

Chapter 12

Development of Deprived Communities Through Multidisciplinary, Interdisciplinary, and Transdisciplinary Approaches Ana Paula Pimentel Walker, Barry Checkoway, Odessa Gonzalez Benson, and Ana Opačić

12.1  P  ossibilities for Collaboration Between Different Professions in Community Development At the very end of this book, it becomes clear as to what extent processes and characteristics of deprived communities are complex, and it is impossible to provide answers based on the actions of only a single profession. From its inception, social work has been closely linked to numerous professions, and integration of knowledge is inherent for social work as a profession. The corpus of theoretical knowledge which social work has inherited is based on theories for social work (Howe 2016), theories that contribute to social work (Payne 2014), theories on social work (Payne 2014), and theories that help in understanding users and societies as well as theories on social work interventions (Collingwood and Davies 2008). In fact, this is how heterogeneous sources of knowledge create the collaborative space for other disciplines and professions.

A. P. Pimentel Walker (*) Taubman College of Architecture and Urban Planning, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA e-mail: [email protected] B. Checkoway School of Social Work, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA e-mail: [email protected] O. Gonzalez Benson School of Social Work and Detroit School of Urban Studies, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA e-mail: [email protected] A. Opačić Faculty of Law, Department of Social Work, University of Zagreb, Zagreb, Croatia e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 A. Opačić (ed.), Practicing Social Work in Deprived Communities, European Social Work Education and Practice, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-65987-5_12

223

224

A. P. Pimentel Walker et al.

The levels of collaboration among the professions are ordinarily divided into three levels (Nicolesacau 1996, in Darbellay et  al. 2008; Klein et  al. 2001; Latucca 2001): (a) Multidisciplinarity (Nicolesacau 1996, in Darbellay et al. 2008) implies that a number of professions study or are involved in the same phenomenon and exchange their obtained insights in a multidisciplinary contact. However, they have no significant effect on one another. In some way, this is a form of cumulating perspectives (Klein et al. 2001). Latucca (2001) uses the term informed disciplinarity for this form of collaboration. (b) Interdisciplinarity (also called synthetic interdisciplinarity), in the narrow sense, means that each profession retains its fundamental goal of action, but a transfer of methods is possible from one to another. Thereby a transformation of the profession occurs to some extent (Latucca 2001). One example can be found in accepting the model of entrepreneurship in social services. (c) Transdisciplinarity is the strongest form of collaboration where a number of professions set a common goal and subsequently develop new knowledge and methods. This practically leads to the creation of new areas of science, and community development is one of these areas. Transdisciplinarity over recent decades has resulted in increasingly more scientific and professional disciplines in order to answer complex global challenges. To achieve the highest forms of collaboration in the area of transdisciplinarity, it becomes important to reach a theoretical and conceptual consensus as well as develop new common and innovative methods. In essence, this is a creative process as it leads to combining earlier unconnected elements. The total outcome and value exceed the sum of contributions of each particular discipline. All levels of collaboration among disciplines encourage creative and new solutions, and in today’s world full of global and local challenges, this collaboration is inescapable (Nowotny et al. 2001, in Barry et al. 2008). Social work as a profession, which from its inception has been directed to making contact with other disciplines, nurtures this collaboration through research, supervision, and real practical projects. The possibilities and levels of collaboration are numerous, and prior to establishing collaborative projects, answering the question as to the purpose and intensity of collaboration is particularly important, that is, whether multidisciplinary, interdisciplinary, or transdisciplinary collaboration will be established. However, it will not be achieved automatically but requires investing effort into the process of collaboration. Specifically, numerous challenges stem from the culture of professions, meaning that each profession has its own specific beliefs, standards, forms of behaviour, and common approaches to achieving and disseminating knowledge (Schoenberger 2001). Each profession also has a certain social status and internal structure as well as a more or less solid hierarchy. Professionals socialize within their profession, accept its culture, and begin to create differences and boundaries towards other disciplines. When speaking of the area of community development, collaboration between the different disciplines and professions is desirable and necessary. A wide range of

12  Development of Deprived Communities Through Multidisciplinary…

225

stakeholders guarantees a holistic approach to development and sustainability of the programme. Ordinarily, in addition to collaborating among themselves, professionals also collaborate with civic representatives, encouraging collaboration between various sectors (public, private, NGOs, academic community). An analysis of twenty-three multi-professional collaborative examples in the community (Table 12.1) has enabled us to assert that professionals of various profiles within the community most often collaborate for the well-being of children and the youth, sustainable development (which includes the issue of infrastructure), and in the area of food security. Furthermore, the range of included professionals is mostly very extensive, and besides professionals, often enough it includes inhabitants and representatives of civic groups within the community. Modalities and the area of collaboration are also very heterogeneous (see Table 12.1). In the following part of the chapter, we will present more in detail examples of multi-professional collaboration between social work and urban planning that can inspire such collaborations in different deprived and segregated communities. Table 12.1  Forms of inter-professional collaboration in community development References Form of collaboration Child, youth, and families Crocker (1996) Child protection teams in The teams are divided into tiers or subcommittees, including social workers, teachers, and community Newfoundland and members  Labrador Aim of collaboration: public awareness and education projects Activities: handbook, video, public forums Bell et al. The core early Multidisciplinary team, coordinated therapeutic (2010) intervention team process between team of therapists, paediatricians, a clinical psychologist, and a nurse counsellor Research in order to more effectively address Ritchie and International intra-familial violence in their respective Eby (2007) interdisciplinary communities participatory research Faculties from various disciplines, including social work, women’s studies, psychology, education, nursing, and public health Two general areas of activity: (1) Research and Flannery and Begun Center for evaluation Singer (2014) Violence Prevention Research and Education (2) Training and technical assistance Collaborative, community-based research and evaluation Educators, public school personnel, clergy, political Scheve et al. The community teams leaders, law enforcement agents, parents, (2006) are associated with the representatives from human service agencies (e.g. PROSPER model Approximately 10 adults mental health professionals), and youth members and two high school youth comprise each team (continued)

226

A. P. Pimentel Walker et al.

Table 12.1 (continued) References Form of collaboration Personal well-being and empowerment Moxley et al. AiR – applied research (2012) project Subban (2007) Community-based literacy programmes

Sylvestre et al. (2006)

Facilitated discussion between multi-­ stakeholder participation

Van Eyk and Baum (2002)

Early childhood intervention project

Collaboration between social work and art Community education included GED (high school equivalency) classes, leadership training, and training to develop leadership Public speaking, economics and economic planning, accountancy, and history classes, as well as organizational development training Discussions with over fifty stakeholders from across the province as well as with a provincial reference group comprised of members of provincial service provider stakeholder organizations, providers from different regions of the province, a provincial consumer group, a family group, and representatives of the community A new integrated model for child assessment Developed a training programme and resource kit for peer educators Regional health information

Sustainable development Osborne (2016) A regional knowledge hub concept Miller et al. School gardens (2012) Langille et al. (2008)

Oladipo et al. (2007) De Jesus et al. (2018)

Interdisciplinary collaborative research projects in Aboriginal and Torres Islands communities Service-learning interdisciplinary programme Students from three disciplines (foods and nutrition, horticulture, and social work) Collaborative research Three working groups were organized according to and training programme project objectives: rural indicators, rural policy, and rural training All working groups were composed of representatives from community organizations, university, and college researchers from Nova Scotia and other institutions across Canada, students, and government representatives, with lesser representation from the private sector. A total of 49 different organizations were involved in the working groups, including economic development agencies, universities and community colleges, women’s groups, libraries, community development organizations, and others, with 13 organizations involved in more than one group Interdisciplinary research The Jos-McMaster Drought and Rural Water Use project Project (1993–1998) Involvement of professionals from different fields Research project with of knowledge, such as nursing, engineering, multi-professional, architecture, pedagogy, and psychology intersectoral and Approximately 50 community members and 30 interinstitutional members of the multi-professional team, composed characteristics of nurses, architects, engineers, and students of these disciplines (continued)

12  Development of Deprived Communities Through Multidisciplinary…

227

Table 12.1 (continued) References Bun Ku and Dominelli (2017)

Form of collaboration Transdisciplinary action research and community kitchen project

Ersing et al. (2007) Schensul et al. (2006)

The Pentru Voi Bakery

Collaborative prevention project in HIV prevention in India, Mumbai Agramont et al. A transdisciplinary (2019) learning community The water research project Zavratnik et al. Living labs in rural (2019) settings

Food security Fleischhacker et al. (2013)

Suarez-­ Balcazar et al. (2006)

Community-based participatory research

Interdisciplinary partnership – Chicago Food System Collaborative (CFSC)

The transdisciplinary PAR collaboration among villagers, social workers, and environmental designers Green social work spatial intervention model The research team facilitated the formation of a community kitchen project Social enterprise for people with intellectual disabilities US and Indian anthropologists, psychologists, demographers, epidemiologists, physicians and representatives of other fields and sectors Researchers and nonacademic actors Transdisciplinary research programme between the Universidad Católica Boliviana San Pablo (UCB) in Bolivia and the Flemish Interuniversity Council (VLIR-UOS) Living labs are spaces for innovative and participatory research, development and activities that use multidisciplinary approaches and promote the co-creation paradigm Synergies among various stakeholders in rural areas: inhabitants, entrepreneurs, decision-makers and policymakers, educators, farmers and aspiring (young) leaders Research and training in agricultural production, applied economics, linguistics, medical and rural sociology, multiculturalism, and public health law and policy Partners from four academic institutions and three community-based organizations Total of eight disciplines that included community development and community organizing, community psychology, geography, nursing, nutrition, public health, sociology, and urban planning and policy

12.2  P  rofessional Collaborations in the United States: Defying the Segregated City Social workers and urban planners have worked together since at least the time of the settlement house movement in England and the United Studies, 1800–1920s, in an effort to provide health, education and poverty relief for families living in low-­ income neighbourhoods (Bowen 2015; Haynes and White 1999). However, it is also during this period that the distinction between group social work and casework

228

A. P. Pimentel Walker et al.

emerges, increasingly creating a separate field of community planning (Lasch-­ Quinn 2017, p. 152). According to Christopher Silver (1985, p. 162), The settlement house workers not only enunciated the neighborhood idea but also supplied object lessons through their daily labors that inspired city planning pioneers to translate concern for neighborhood preservation and uplift into prescriptions for revamping the physical (and consequently the social) fabric of cities.

In the realm of urban redevelopment programmes, the history of collaboration in the interwar and post–World War II periods contributed to racial segregation and discrimination, displacing African-Americans from their neighbourhoods. Social workers and urban planners worked together to implement urban renewal programmes (Bowen 2015). The social and racial injustices facilitated by this collaboration are well-documented, but often forgotten (Thomas 2013). Since the settlement house movement, many areas for potential collaboration emerged in housing, transportation, community development and organizing, just to name a few. However, partnerships between practitioners in urban planning and social work often require federal initiatives. In the United States, interagency partnerships usually entail federal funding guidelines propelling collaboration. This is the case for transportation funding, which requires combined efforts from counties and local agencies to improve transportation services for welfare recipients (Blumenberg 2002). Failures in public transportation continue to limit the employment opportunities of welfare recipients to car owners (Blumenberg and Pierce 2017; Cervero et  al. 2002; Grengs 2012; Sanchez 2008). Disaster planning and community resilience is another fertile ground for collaborations between planners and social workers (Baum 1997; Hawkins and Maurer 2010). Social workers and urban planners have collaborated in pre-disaster readiness plans (Freitag et  al. 2014). This is very important since several difficulties emerge in distributing release funds that require community organizing and transdisciplinary collaborations (Pyles 2007). In the field of housing assistance, affordable housing, and homelessness, the challenges can be overwhelming. In Martin v. City of Boise (9th Cir. 2018), the US Court of Appeals reaffirms its prior rulings that a city ordinance, which criminalizes at all times and in all places the sitting, lying, or sleeping on public streets and sidewalks, without providing an alternative, constitutes cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment to the US Constitution (Donaldson 2019). Although the Department of Justice and the Federal Housing and Urban Development department support this understanding, city planners continue to promote urban revitalization policies that privilege economic development over fair housing. Yet, there are exceptions, such as cities that create storage rooms, transitional pavilions, and 24-h public restrooms, all to avoid discrimination and criminalization of the homeless population (Aykanian and Lee 2016). These decriminalization efforts require professionals in social work, urban planning, public health, and law.

12  Development of Deprived Communities Through Multidisciplinary…

229

12.3  P  rofessional Collaborations in Brazil: Supporting Informal Dwellers’ Right to the City In the Global South, homelessness is also a persistent problem with social workers managing shelters and working on the streets, providing support to youth and other vulnerable populations at risk. However, it is in the realm of slum upgrading that most inter- and transdisciplinary collaborations take place. Scholars highlight the need for social workers to develop models of practice for serving slum dwellers given the influence of international aid and development loans (Laing 2014, p. 20). In Brazil, social workers work closely with architects and planners implementing city-wide slum-upgrading programmes at least since the 1990s. Slum upgrading, called urbanização in Brazil, takes place in several stages, starting with the physical and cadastral (socio-demographic) surveys of the land and households (França 2013). Social workers are fundamental for participatory slum-upgrading projects, especially in the early stages of enumeration, socio-demographic survey, and consensus building towards the reblocking agreement. In sum, social workers act as community liaisons between shack dwellers’ unions, residents and municipal departments. When slum upgrading involves participation or community co-management, the most important step is a signed agreement among all residents and the municipality on the settlement layout after upgrades (Pimentel Walker 2016, p. 63). Community participation can occur during the enumeration of commercial and residential buildings and during the plans to replot the informal settlement (Chitekwe-Biti et  al. 2012). Community agreement on the realignment of plots is fundamental to avoid lawsuits and delays. Informal settlements need reblocking in order to accommodate drainage and street pavement of main streets for the circulation of ambulances and fire trucks. Formal municipal sewage connections also consume land, requiring the relocation of houses. In Brazil, architects and planners promote this type of in situ, participatory upgrading alongside social workers (Pimentel Walker 2016, p.  61; Pimentel Walker and Arquero de Alarcón 2018). Social workers work closely not only with urban planners, helping them understand living arrangements, livelihoods, and kinship, but also with sociologists in designing, testing, and collecting socio-demographic surveys. These collaborations are fundamental for the co-­ production of slum-upgrading projects that reflect community needs. Social work has participated in urban policies for the clearance and containment of cortiços and favelas (slum tenements and informal settlements) since the beginning of the twentieth century (Valladares 2005). During this time, social workers and urban planners contributed to hygienist projects of social cleansing (Gomes 2015). In the late 1960s, the profession of social work gained official space inside federal housing agencies, such as the National Housing Bank, BNH, especially in the area of community organizing for low-income housing cooperatives (Paz and Taboada 2010). Yet, most federal initiatives towards integrative and participatory housing policies with the contribution of social work took place in the past two decades (Pimentel 2012).

230

A. P. Pimentel Walker et al.

The 1988 National Constituent Assembly propelled the struggle for urban reform aimed to combat residential segregation and land speculation while promoting the right to adequate housing. The Urban Reform Movement fought with powerful lobbies of the conservative forces to pass innovative and progressive legislation (Saule Júnior and Uzzo 2010). It was the moment when national professional associations of architects and planners, lawyers, engineers, and social workers drafted bills and policies for the legislative branches at the municipal, state, and federal levels, as well as internal professional guidelines, all to advance the rights of those living in slum tenements, informal settlements, and precarious neighbourhoods. The end of the dictatorship and the enactment of the 1988 Brazilian Constitution led to a shift in social work from assistentialism that enabled evictions and for-profit urban revitalization towards an emancipatory project based on the right to the city. In the 1990s, the Social Services Federal Council (Conselho Federal de Serviço Social/ CFESS) and the Regional Councils of Social Services (Conselho Regional de Serviço Social/CRESS) revised the social work code of ethics and academic curriculum for accreditation in order to incorporate democratic principles in an attempt to abandon paternalistic practices of social work (Gomez 2015, p. 109). After the right to housing was established via constitutional amendment in 2000, several enabling legislations passed to implement the urban reform agenda as well as the right to housing. Among these federal laws are the Federal City Statute of 2001 and the 2005 National System of Social Interest Housing (SNHIS), along with the National Fund for Social Interest Housing (FNHIS), which established the Management Council of the FNHIS (Ferreira et al. 2019; Maricato 2017; Stacoviaki et  al. 2019). All these enabling legislations require community participation in deliberative councils for housing, zoning, and other basic services. All the capacity building for local agencies to implement participatory master plans, housing plans, and zoning for social interest housing was provided by The Federal Ministry of Cities (Dias dos Santos 2020). The Ministério das Cidades was a cabinet-level ministry in Brazil, created in 2003 and downgraded and reassigned to The Ministry of Regional Development by President Bolsonaro in 2019. The Ministry of Cities developed special capacity-building programmes targeting not only municipal social services departments, but also social workers working for nonprofit social architecture firms. In 2014, the Ministry enacted a new resolution enacting a manual for clarifying the role of social workers in urban and housing plans, to include socio-territorial diagnosis (Stacoviaki et al. 2019). This late resolution and previous training consolidated the role of social workers in developing, advocating, and implementing housing and urban policy. For instance, social workers have contributed to tailoring housing proposals to the needs of female-­headed households and single mothers (Oliveira and Cassab 2010). In the city of São Paulo where one of the co-authors conducts participatory action research, all the three nonprofit social architecture firms she interviewed have one social worker among their staff. They worked along a team of architects, planners, and engineers, providing popular education, community organizing, and capacity-­ building training for informal settlement associations, low-income housing cooperatives, and housing movements. The final products transcend the materiality of

12  Development of Deprived Communities Through Multidisciplinary…

231

the slum upgrading, building retrofit, or low-income housing development because the process involved the co-production of plans and prepared residents to the self-­ management of their communities.

12.4  S  cholarly Collaborations: Just Futures and Community Building Social work may approach migrant populations through the lens of direct services, while urban planning and public health professionals may also focus on reaching individuals and families to engage in public hearings, charrettes, and health education campaigns. By contrast, the participatory action research (PAR) presented here engages with migrant-run community-based organizations as representatives of their communities. The PAR is part of the research collective, Just Futures (2020), that grew from a collaboration between the schools of urban planning and social work, as well as education, nursing, and information. Immigrant and refugee-run community-based organizations (migrant-run CBOs) – managed by and for migrants – are financially unstable and sometimes informal, thus, often invisible to healthcare, housing and human service providers. Research demonstrates that migrant-run CBOs are undercounted and underfunded, generating civic inequalities compared to their counter partners. Yet, migrant-run CBOs fill gaps in services not provided by mainstream institutions and facilitate the integration of migrant communities in the US society, playing a key role in social and cultural adjustment (Gonzalez Benson 2020a, b; Gonzalez Benson et al. 2019).

12.4.1  Benefits and Challenges of the Collaboration A collaboration across disciplines was necessitated due to the complexity of refugee resettlement and immigration. Supporting refugees necessitated first and foremost the knowledge and priorities of refugee communities themselves as represented by migrant-run CBOs. Also, the aims of the collaboration were participatory approaches with resettled refugees in two aspects: service provision and urban governance. Thus, some aspect of the collaboration warranted specialized assistance, direct service provision, and community building that were within the domain of social work; and other aspects called for institutional perspectives and broad-based planning as domains of urban planning. The education, expertise, and specialization specific to each discipline make specific contributions into the work conducted. Yet, the two domains (service provision and urban governance) and areas of work (social work and urban planning) are at the same time deeply intertwined. As professional work, social work, and urban planning professionals are embedded in similar institutions and policies and share content/practice areas, such as nonprofit and public

232

A. P. Pimentel Walker et al.

management, community development, programme evaluation, human resources, policy advocacy, etc. In academia meanwhile, there are overlaps in theoretical underpinnings of social work and urban planning. Through research and capacity building with migrant-run CBOs, the collaboration was able to begin to develop participatory approaches to service provision and urban governance with resettled refugees and immigrants, often marginalized and experiencing intersected systems of disadvantage. First, in terms of research, data were collected using surveys, interviews, focus groups, participant observation, and document analysis. In 2018, we identified twenty-one migrant-run CBOs in a Midwest, midsize metropolitan region and administered an organizational survey to their board members. The in-depth survey consisted of 258 closed-ended questions about the nature and scope of CBOs’ activities. The pretested survey was adapted to include questions that address human services, health, education, housing, transportation, and advocacy. Thus, the survey sections and questions reflect the subject areas associated with several disciplines, since the needs of migrants are not compartmentalized. Furthermore, we documented CBOs’ size, budgets, communities served, and their links to service providers at the local, state, and federal levels. At the local level, we encountered that municipal agencies did not even know about the presence of some ethnic communities and their CBOs, although two-thirds of the organizations that we surveyed have a formal 501c3 status. Our findings demonstrate that migrant-run CBOs literally do everything. They conduct casework when families face issues of domestic violence or unemployment benefits. Migrant community leaders also help with landlord-tenant mediation, real estate advice, and drivers’ education. During the COVID-19 pandemic, one refugee-­ run CBO translated health information into their native language, distributed personal protective equipment kits, and advocated for stronger safety measures at food processing factories where resettled refugees worked. The integrative approach of migrant-run CBOs to address community needs could not be fully captured by a single discipline. Thus, research provides empirical data about the ways through which migrant-­ run CBOs provide activities for their own communities, develop institutional links, and use infrastructure and resources. These data are formulated into theoretical frameworks and concepts, which informed and were applied into capacity building and action, discussed next. Second, the PAR team aims to develop capacity-building techniques and outreach strategies that will amplify the voices of migrants vis- à -vis local agencies. A central to the “action” component to the action research is the facilitating of dialogue and relations between leaders of migrant-run CBOs and mainstream local institutions, to amplify the voices of migrants. Such institutions (public agencies and private nonprofit organizations) include health departments, schools, philanthropy NGOs, and police departments in the local urban area. Specifically, the collaboration seeks to bring leaders of migrant-run CBOs and mainstream local institutions together in dialogue, to brainstorm and develop/strengthen ways of working together to better support refugee communities. Capacity building, as

12  Development of Deprived Communities Through Multidisciplinary…

233

action and practice component to the collaboration, entails working with migrant-­ run CBO leaders towards developing nonprofit management leadership and capacities in grant writing, programme evaluation and other organizational activities. In addition, the PAR team develops user-friendly tools for board members and community leaders to record their own daily activities, which can support reporting and grant applications. Collaborations between academia and community organizations can also encounter challenges, given varying institutional norms and modalities. For instance, activities did not go according to plans in the earlier phases of the collaboration, as faculty and students were not used to a more social, informal, laidback approach of refugee communities, which often took more time. Faculty and students had to adjust norms about time and use of space by refugee communities. As another example, there were discussions about the persistent and detailed processes of data collection that are necessary for research, something that migrantrun CBO leaders were not used to. Migrant-run CBOs are generally oriented to development and supports for their communities in the here and now, and the future orientation and longer timeline of academia’s knowledge production thus needed some explanation. Lessons learned in forging transdisciplinarity. In terms of transdisciplinary process, the collaboration sought to harness the knowledge, skills, and expertise of various team members in an organic way. The work was approached as a team collective, aiming to build upon strengths and preferences of team members, who were considered not only social workers, urban planners, or refugee leaders, but simply as individuals. That is, the insights and experiences of each individual were valued and integrated into the work as such, rather than be explicitly linked with their disciplinary or expertise domain. Tasks and activities were not assigned depending on whether team members were in social work or urban planning, nor were ideas and analytical and practice strategies warranted or sought out based on disciplinary background. The aim and intent were to facilitate team members in sharing insights without the burden of “representing” their field and without feeling cornered into specific aspect of the work. Furthermore, this approach sought to facilitate other team members asking questions and posing challenge to ideas and strategies without generating a defensive disciplinary response. This collective approach sought to break down silos that can too often complicate and stunt collaborative work across disciplines. In short, disciplinary delineations and boundaries were not made central to the work, and what emerged was an organic approach to the collaboration. The disciplinary differences and distinct contributions, as well as their overlaps and shared modalities, can be conceptualized as existing simultaneously as a sort of “productive tension”. Social work as a discipline is both distinct and integrative, allowing to be harnessed in inter-, multi-, and transdisciplinary collaborations in very productive ways. The practice and academic overlaps between social work and urban planning as well as other disciplines, in turn, can further synthesize and fuse with the ways of doing and knowing of refugee communities.

234

A. P. Pimentel Walker et al.

12.5  D  ual Degree Programmes as Basis for Sustainable Transdisciplinary Collaboration Social work, urban planning, and public health have been complementary fields since their start. Each field grew out of roots in the nineteenth century when their practitioners were trying to address problems arising in the neighbourhoods of large industrial cities. At a time of increasing industrialization and urbanization, both fields were concerned with social conditions. Social work placed emphasis on the social conditions of workers in the factories and their families and children in overcrowded urban areas, such as inadequate light and ventilation, running water, toilet facilities, and fire escapes in tenement houses. Urban planning placed emphasis on the physical infrastructure, land use and design of the urban environment, including mass transit, in the form of trolleys, cable cars, and subways. Both fields were concerned about housing conditions, which were required in both fields. At the same time, there were developments that caused them to grow apart. First, both fields increased in their specialization and professionalization, which were recognized by their historians of the period. Second was their location as units in universities, where faculty members and students focused on their emerging fields of practice and subjects of study. In so doing, they both grew apart while also reaching out to other fields, such as architecture, landscape architecture, and sometimes engineering for urban planning and interpersonal practice, child welfare. Urban planning drew itself closer to architecture, landscape architecture, engineering, and physical land use and zoning. Social work added interpersonal practice, child welfare, health care, and other therapeutic interventions, in social work. Teaching and training in each field became more distinct in their respective units on campus. There were topics of complementary concerns such as community, planning, organizing, and social justice, which were included in the ethics of both fields while specialization continued apace. At the University of Michigan, faculty members from the School of Social Work and College of Architecture and Urban Planning recognized their complementarity and interdisciplinarity while also moving forward in their distinct specialization. Specifically, they established a dual degree programme in which some students sought professional education preparing them for practice that combined the knowledge of both skills. Certain subfields emerged as especially important, such as social housing and community development. The belief was and remains today that the problems and issues arising at the community level had no single solutions and that a combination of both fields could accomplish more together than each field acting alone. The curriculum was organized around efforts to: • • • •

Organize groups for social action Plan initiatives at the local level Develop community-based programmes Involve community members in the institutions and decisions that affect their loved ones

12  Development of Deprived Communities Through Multidisciplinary…

235

Special emphasis was placed upon community-based development, and social planning, community development, and other terms recognized their common content. Students admitted to the combined programme are expected to enrol in courses in one unit during the first year and courses in the other unit in the second year. Students may begin at either school. During the third year of the programme, students are permitted to elect courses in either school or are generally not restricted in their choices beyond fulfilling the required course work. Some students sought to take some courses simultaneously through the programme, at the discretion of the students’ and faculty adviser. As it developed, the dual degree programme tended to focus on core competencies: • Demonstrate knowledge of the changing context and historical development of social work and urban planning and core concepts of community practice in both fields. • Critically analyse theories and research findings about planning practice. • Define ways in which practice contributes to democratic participation, collective action, social justice, social change, and pluralism and multiculturalism as ends and means. • Demonstrate knowledge of skills to strengthen pluralism and multiculturalism. • Identify community assets, of specific populations, such as people of colour, women, and LGBTQIA+ community, in addition to those distinguished by age, ethnicity, culture, class, religion, and physical or mental ability. • Understand the forces that facilitate and limit community efforts to overcome inequalities in oppression, power, and privilege. • Develop understanding of group skills needed for increasing intercultural interaction and cross-cultural collaboration at the community level. • Implement plans, programmes, actions, or tactics conductive to organizational or community situations, build constituency support, and collaborate and negotiate with diverse groups relevant to implementation. • Monitor and evaluate activities through techniques that assess activities and outcomes, raise critical consciousness, motivate participation, and contribute to improvement and change. The dual degree sought to develop the knowledge and skills needed for practice in social work and urban planning and was treated as an innovation in both. The programme is designed to prepare students for roles as change agents, engage faculty members in community practice, and develop long-term partnerships with community collaborators. These are needed in both fields, while their combination is also a new chapter in the histories of both.

12.6  I mportance of Multi-professional Collaboration for the Development of Deprived Communities The mentioned examples indicate various possibilities of collaboration with a wide choice of stakeholders. In many of the mentioned examples, high education insti­ tutions or umbrella organizations are important facilitators of collaboration.

236

A. P. Pimentel Walker et al.

The purpose and organizational forms of collaboration are also heterogeneous. This often involves collaborative research, followed by action in the community or activities in the advancement of policies and educating inhabitants and professionals. What is especially important is the examples of project collaboration and establishing collaborative teams that support integrated forms of social services within the community. Due to lack of resources, deprived communities need more of that type of collaboration, whereas an insufficient number of professionals creates a situation where existing professionals should network even more. When professionals are connecting through networks, they become an inspiring example of good opposition to the elites and privileged minorities. They are an important role model for citizens while also encouraging collaboration and building trust, and subsequently the building of social capital, especially when the community is threatened by social disorganization  and external discrimination. A network of various professionals is a guarantee that the best-quality projects will be developed for the community. It also becomes an incentive that possible divisions between inhabitants can be overcome and prevented. Of course, when professionals are connected, resources can be deployed more efficiently, helping users find the path to the services they need. This is crucially important in communities lacking resources. Finally, we mention that inter-professional collaboration helps professionals reduce the level of professional isolation, especially when working in remote, segregated, or sparsely populated areas.

References Agramont, A., Craps, M., Balderrama, M., & Huysmans, M. (2019). Transdisciplinary learning communities to involve vulnerable social groups in solving complex water-related problems in Bolivia. Watermark, 11(2), 385. https://doi.org/10.3390/w11020385. Aykanian, A., & Lee, W. (2016). Social work’s role in ending the criminalization of homelessness: Opportunities for action. Social Work, 61(2), 183–185. https://doi.org/10.1093/sw/sww011. Barry, A., Born, G., & Weszkalnys, G. (2008). Logics of interdisciplinarity. Economy and Society, 37(1), 20–49. https://doi.org/10.1080/03085140701760841. Baum, H.  S. (1997). Social science, social work, and surgery: Teaching what students need to practice planning. Journal of the American Planning Association, 63(2), 179–188. Bell, A., Corfield, M., Davies, J., & Richardson, N. (2010). Collaborative transdisciplinary intervention in early years – Putting theory into practice. Child: Care, Health and Development, 36(1), 142–148. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-­2214.2009.01027.x. Blumenberg, E. (2002). Planning for the transportation needs of welfare participants: Institutional challenges to collaborative planning. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 22(2), 152–163. https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456X02238444. Blumenberg, E., & Pierce, G. (2017). The drive to work: The relationship between transportation access, housing assistance, and employment among participants in the welfare to work voucher program. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 37(1), 66–82. https://doi.org/10.117 7/0739456X16633501. Bowen, E. A. (2015). Community practice in the bulldozer’s shadow: The history and legacy of social work in urban renewal. Journal of Community Practice, 23(2), 164–181. https://doi. org/10.1080/10705422.2015.1027460.

12  Development of Deprived Communities Through Multidisciplinary…

237

Bun Ku, H., & Dominelli, L. (2017). Not only eating together: Space and green social work intervention in a hazard-affected area in Ya’an, Sichuan of China. The British Journal of Social Work, 48(5), 1409–1431. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjsw/bcx071. Cervero, R., Sandoval, O., & Landis, J. (2002). Transportation as a stimulus of welfare-to-work: Private versus public mobility. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 22(1), 50–63. https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456X0202200105. Chitekwe-Biti, B., Mudimu, P., Nyama, G. M., & Jera, T. (2012). Developing an informal settlement upgrading protocol in Zimbabwe–the Epworth story. Environment and Urbanization, 24(1), 131–148. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956247812437138. Collingwood, P., & Davies, M. (2008). Introduction: Knowledge, theory and social work practice – An easy access approach. In M. Davies (Ed.), The Blackwell companion to social work (pp. 1–9). Malden: Blackwell publishing. Crocker, D. (1996). Innovative models for rural child protection teams. Child Abuse & Neglect, 20(3), 205–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0145-­2134(95)00142-­5. Darbellay, F., Cockell, M., Billote, J., & Waldvogel, F. (2008). A vision of transdisciplinarity: Laying foundations for a world knowledge dialogue. Boca Raton: CRC Press. de Jesus, V. S., Siqueira, S. M. C., de Camargo, C. L., Felzemburgh, R. D. M., Whitaker, M. C. O., dos Santos, M. L., & de Almeida, C. L. (2018). Promotion of health, sustainability and social development of a vulnerable community. Revista Brasileira de Enfermagem, 71(6), 3109–3114. https://doi.org/10.1590/0034-­7167-­2017-­0381. Dias dos Santos, C. (2020). Trabalho social e movimentos de moradia:um estudo da trajetória da assessoria técnica Ambiente Arquitetura e da União dos Movimentos de Moradia de São Paulo. Curitibba: Editora CRV. Donaldson, T. (2019). Criminally homeless? The eighth amendment prohibition against penalizing status. Concordia Law Review, 4(1), Article 2. Available at: https://commons.cu-­portland.edu/ clr/vol4/iss1/2. Ersing, R. L., Loeffler, D. N., Tracy, M. B., & Onu, L. (2007). Pentru Voi Fundatia. Journal of Community Practice, 15(1–2), 193–215. https://doi.org/10.1300/J125v15n01_09. Ferreira, G.  G., Calmon, P., Fernandes, A.  S. A., & Araújo, S.  M. V.  G. (2019). Política habitacional no Brasil: uma análise das coalizões de defesa do Sistema Nacional de Habitação de Interesse Social versus o Programa Minha Casa, Minha Vida. urbe. Revista Brasileira de Gestão Urbana, 11, e20180012. https://doi.org/10.1590/2175-­3369.011.001.AO04. Flannery, D. J., & Singer, M. I. (2014). The Begun Center for Violence Prevention Research and Education at Case Western Reserve University. Research on Social Work Practice, 25(2), 278–285. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049731514543025. Fleischhacker, S., Johnson, D., Quinn, E., Jilcott Pitts, S. B., Byker, C., & Sharkey, J. R. (2013). Advancing rural food access policy research priorities: Process and potential of a transdisciplinary working group. Journal of Agriculture, Food Systems, and Community Development, 3(4), 201–212. https://doi.org/10.5304/jafscd.2013.034.027. França, E. (2013). Slum upgrading: A challenge as big as the City of São Paulo. Focus, 10(1), Article 20. https://doi.org/10.15368/focus.2013v10n1.10. Freitag, R.  C., Abramson, D.  B., Chalana, M., & Dixon, M. (2014). Whole community resilience: An asset-based approach to enhancing adaptive capacity before a disruption. Journal of the American Planning Association, 80(4), 324–335. https://doi.org/10.1080/0194436 3.2014.990480. Gomes, M.  D. F.  C. M. (2015). Serviço social e políticas urbanas: entre o conservadorismo e a viabilização de direitos sociais. Libertas, 15(2), 105–118. https://doi.org/10.34019/1980­8518.2015.v15.18452. Gonzalez Benson, O., Pimentel Walker, A. P., Yoshihama, M., Burnett, C., & Asadi, L. (2019). A framework for ancillary health services provided by refugee and immigrant-run CBOs: Language assistance, systems navigation, and hands on support. Journal of Community Medicine and Health Education, 9(5), 665.

238

A. P. Pimentel Walker et al.

Gonzalez-Benson, O. (2020a). Refugee-run grassroots organizations: Responsive assistance beyond the constraints of U.S. resettlement. Journal of Refugee Studies, feaa010. https://doi. org/10.1093/jrs/feaa010. Gonzalez-Benson, O. (2020b). Welfare support activities of grassroots refugee-run community organizations: A reframing. Journal of Community Practice, 28(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/1 0.1080/10705422.2020.1716427. Grengs, J. (2012). Equity and the social distribution of job accessibility in Detroit. Environment and Planning. B, Planning & Design, 39(5), 785–800. https://doi.org/10.1068/b36097. Hawkins, R. L., & Maurer, K. (2010). Bonding, bridging and linking: How social capital operated in New Orleans following Hurricane Katrina. British Journal of Social Work, 40(6), 1777–1793. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjsw/bcp087. Haynes, D. T., & White, B. W. (1999). Will the “real” social work please stand up? A call to stand for professional unity. Social Work, 44(4), 385–391. Retrieved August 3, 2020, from www. jstor.org/stable/23718663. Howe, D. (2016). An introduction to social work theory. New York: Routledge. Just Futures. (2020). Just Futures: An action research collaborative on displacement, migration and urban studies. http://justfutures-­research.org/. Accessed 30 June 2020. Klein, J. T., Häberli, R., & Roland, S. W. (2001). Transdisciplinarity: Joint problem solving among science, technology and society. Basel: Birkhauser Verlag. Laing, B.  Y. (2014). Slums and affordable housing. In Encyclopaedia of social work. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://oxfordre.com/socialwork/view/10.1093/ acrefore/9780199975839.001.0001/acrefore-­9780199975839-­e-­1026. Langille, L., Munro, I., Romanow, P., Lyons, R., Bull, A., & Williams, P. (2008). Building collaborative capacity for research and influencing policy: The rural communities impacting policy project. Journal of Rural and Community Development, 3(3), 23–55. Lasch-Quinn, E. (2017). Black neighbors: Race and the limits of reform in the American settlement house movement, 1890–1945. Chapel Hill: UNC Press Books. Lattuca, L. R. (2001). Creating interdisciplinarity: Interdisciplinary research and teaching among college and university faculty. Nashville: Vanderbilt university press. Maricato, E. (2017). O impasse da política urbana no Brasil. Petropolis: Editora Vozes Limitada. Martin v. City of Boise, 902 F.3d 1031 (9th Cir. 2018). Miller, S. E., Lee, J. S., & Berle, D. (2012). Community engagement from the ground up: An interdisciplinary service-learning after-school garden program. Journal of Agriculture, Food Systems, and Community Development, 2(3), 121–135. https://doi.org/10.5304/jafscd.2012.023.013. Moxley, D. P., Feen-Calligan, H., & Washington, O. G. M. (2012). Lessons learned from three projects linking social work, the arts, and humanities. Social Work Education, 31(6), 703–723. https://doi.org/10.1080/02615479.2012.695160. Oladipo, F. C., Amupitan, J., Dabi, D., & Nyong, A. (2007). From disciplinary to interdisciplinary community development. Journal of Community Practice, 15(1–2), 147–170. https://doi. org/10.1300/J125v15n01_07. Oliveira, M. N. D., & Cassab, L. A. (2010). O Serviço Social na habitação: O trabalho social como instrumento de acesso das mulheres à moradia. Simpósio Sobre Estudos De Gênero E Políticas Públicas, 1. Osborne, S. (2016). Cultural capacity and development; the case for flexible, interdisciplinary research in remote aboriginal and Torres Strait Island communities. Learning Communities: International Journal of Learning in Social Contexts, 19, 48–65. Payne, M. (2014). Modern social work theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Paz, R. D.O., & Taboada, K. J. (2010). Trabalho Social em programas e projetos de habitação de interesse social – Ensino à Distância –EAD. Brasília: Ministério das Cidades, 27 pg. Pimentel, J.  R. (2012). O trabalho social no contexto da atual política nacional de habitação: a difusão de um modelo e as implicações para o exercício profissional do assistente social. Revista Convergência Crítica, 1. https://doi.org/10.22409/rcc.v1i1.780.

12  Development of Deprived Communities Through Multidisciplinary…

239

Pimentel Walker, A.  P. (2016). Self-help or public housing? Lessons from co-managed slum upgrading via participatory budget. Habitat International, 55, 58–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. habitatint.2016.02.005. Pimentel Walker, A.  P., & Arquero de Alarcón, M.  A. (2018). The competing social and environmental functions of private urban land: The case of an informal land occupation in Sao Paulo’s south periphery. Sustainability, 10(11), 1–24. https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/ v10y2018i11p4160-­d182249.html. Pyles, L. (2007). Community organizing for post-disaster social development: Locating social work. International Social Work, 50(3), 321–333. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020872807076044. Ritchie, D. J., & Eby, K. K. (2007). Transcending boundaries. Journal of Community Practice, 15(1–2), 121–145. https://doi.org/10.1300/J125v15n01_06. Sanchez, T. W. (2008). Poverty, policy, and public transportation. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 42(5), 833–841. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2008.01.011. Saule Júnior, N., & Uzzo, K. (2010). The history of urban reform in Brazil. In Cities for All: Proposals and experiences towards the Right to the City (pp. 247–258). Santiago: HIC. Schensul, S. L., Nastasi, B. K., & Verma, R. K. (2006). Community-based research in India: A case example of international and transdisciplinary collaboration. American Journal of Community Psychology, 38(1–2), 125–139. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10464-­006-­9066-­z. Scheve, J. A., Perkins, D. F., & Mincemoyer, C. (2006). Collaborative teams for youth engagement. Journal of Community Practice, 14(1–2), 219–234. https://doi.org/10.1300/j125v14n01_13. Schoenberger, E. (2001). Interdisciplinarity and social power. Progress in Human Geography, 25(3), 365–382. https://doi.org/10.1191/030913201680191727. Silver, C. (1985). Neighborhood planning in historical perspective. Journal of the American Planning Association, 51(2), 161–174. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944368508976207. Stacoviaki, J. L. J., Cordero, N. D., dos Santos, P., & Guimarães, S. N. M. (2019). O Serviço Social no diagnóstico socioterritorial. Humanidades em Perspectivas, 6(3), 378–382. Suarez-Balcazar, Y., Hellwig, M., Kouba, J., Redmond, L., Martinez, L., Block, D., Kohrman, C., & Peterman, W. (2006). The making of an interdisciplinary partnership: The case of the Chicago food system collaborative. American Journal of Community Psychology, 38(1–2), 95–111. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10464-­006-­9067-­y. Subban, J. E. (2007). Adult literacy education and community development. Journal of Community Practice, 15(1–2), 67–90. https://doi.org/10.1300/J125v15n01_04. Sylvestre, J., Nelson, G., Durbin, J., George, L., Aubry, T., & Ollenberg, M. (2006). Housing for people with serious mental illness: Challenges for system-level community development. Community Development, 37(3), 35–45. https://doi.org/10.1080/15575330.2006.10383106. Thomas, J. M. (2013). Redevelopment and race: Planning a finer city in postwar Detroit. Detroit: Wayne State University Press. Valladares, L. P. (2005). A invenção da favela: do mito de origem a favela. com. Fundação Getúlio Vargas Press. Van Eyk, H., & Baum, F. (2002). Learning about interagency collaboration: Trialling collaborative projects between hospitals and community health services. Health & Social Care in the Community, 10(4), 262–269. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-­2524.2002.00369.x. Zavratnik, V., Superina, A., & Stojmenova Duh, E. (2019). Living labs for rural areas: Contextualization of living lab frameworks, concepts and practices. Sustainability, 11(14), 3797. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11143797.

Part IV

Conclusion

Chapter 13

Conclusion: Full Profile of Social Work in Deprived Communities Ana Opačić

Since its inception, social work has been marked by a dilemma: Should the individual in need be helped by focusing on him/her or their environment? This dilemma is logical, and much time is devoted to this theoretical debate. However, the dilemma is actually only theoretical and in fact artificial. A community is the sum of its members, but even more than that. Deprived communities are autonomous entities vulnerable to developmental difficulties, while, on the other hand, deprived communities are realms of a greater concentration of those individuals whose destinies are marked by poverty, marginalisation, and social exclusion. We will never obtain an outright answer to the question of whether deprived communities are deprived per se, or whether it is the sum of individually deprived units who, due to certain circumstances, live in the same habitat. Complex and dynamic processes reveal a complex intertwining of collective and personal trajectories. This does not mean that the question of the individual–collective relationship is irrelevant, just that we as social workers should invest more effort to reveal the layers of this mutual intertwining of individuals and the community. Why is social work in deprived communities an area of special interest within community work, that is, generally within the practice of social work? 1. Deprivation of communities is a social problem. Deprived communities are a globally dispersed phenomenon in which a significant part of the world’s population lives. Unfortunately, intensive migration in the twenty-first century will become a new form of spatial segregation, while contentious uncontrolled development of megacities will result in the realm of vulnerable communities spreading in the cities. On the other hand, this will further increase the remoteness of

A. Opačić (*) Faculty of Law, Department of Social Work, University of Zagreb, Zagreb, Croatia e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 A. Opačić (ed.), Practicing Social Work in Deprived Communities, European Social Work Education and Practice, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-65987-5_13

243

244

A. Opačić

rural communities. The expectation is that the number of inhabitants and areas of deprived communities throughout the world will increase. 2. The deprivation of communities is a generator of social inequalities. Just in the last 5 years, research has clearly confirmed that life in deprived communities has harmful consequences on almost all areas of personal well-being, including physical and mental health, education, economic status, and personal development, as well as family and close relationships. Researchers have uncovered an increasing number of social inequality layers, from traditional inequalities on the labour market to altogether new forms of inequalities, such a digital, ecological, and some completely specific inequalities, such as heating of cities. The expectation is that inequalities will deepen due to slower growth in deprived communities, but the fall will be more rapid. The modern age is rapidly exposing a vulnerability to crises and seeks rapid adjustment. For instance, it seems altogether probable that the risk of infection from SARS-CoV-2 and its consequences will be more seriously felt in poorly developed areas, and the economic recession there will also be greater. Also, it becomes clear that less developed areas undergo digital transformation more difficultly, a transformation in the pandemic period that is especially needed. On the other hand, the pace of adapting to the health crisis in deprived communities will be slower and less effective due to inadequate infrastructure and insufficient professional capacities. A similar scenario occurs when a society is afflicted by other types of crises, such as ecological catastrophes, migrant crises, wars, and the like. However, the inequality gap cannot deepen limitlessly. If it continues, the spillover effects on the surroundings become more serious, and isolating the community in order to prevent any effects on its surroundings becomes impossible, whether they are the poor neighbourhoods of Paris, New York, Tokyo, and Jakarta or remote and inaccessible areas of the Arctic in Canada. 3. Developed and underdeveloped communities are not part of the same continuum and are not the front and back of the same coin. Deprived communities are a phenomenon exhibiting internal dynamics and processes. The effect of a deprived community will not be proportional to the effect of a developed community. Implementing generally known and accepted principles of community development in deprived communities pose serious challenges. In addition, the role of professionals in deprived communities is not the same as in other areas, where highly specialised work with clear professional boundaries towards users cannot be expected in some communities. The situation in which social workers work cannot be ignored, even when working in the same country. This situation to a large extent defines professional tasks, as well as the professional role and identity. Consequently, we believe that social work in deprived communities should be profiled as a special area of social work community practice.

13  Conclusion: Full Profile of Social Work in Deprived Communities

245

13.1  W  hat Should Social Workers Know About Deprived Communities? 13.1.1  Understanding the Concept of the Deprived Community As a start, many social workers, practitioners, and scientists are not satisfied with the concept of the deprived community, and they seem to be right. Social workers like to use terms that separate the entity from the problem, where perhaps a more acceptable term might be developmentally sensitive community, community with development difficulties, or a community with development challenges. Perhaps more acceptable terms are those which are solution-based and not problem-based, such as priority communities or priority areas as used in French regional policies. In this book, we have been pragmatically about using those terms which have already gained traction in literature. We use the concept of the deprived community as an ‘umbrella’ term due to reasons explained later and in Chapter 1. Existing terminology is quite heterogeneous, inconsistent, clearly not referring to the same phenomenon. Up to fifteen terms or concepts are in regular use and can be grouped as follows: (a) does it refer to a specialised or generic term, (b) based on the scope of understanding as to what is meant by disadvantage and deprivation, and (c) based on the approach to taking measurements? Specific and generic terms. There are terms which are contextually very specific and practically reserved for certain types of deprived communities, such as the slum, ghetto, favela, remote community, vulnerable community, and less favoured area. They can be used outside of the assumed context but are then used as metaphors or symbols, and not in their original theoretical meaning. There are also terms with a generic character and are more widely applicable, such as disadvantaged, deprived, marginalised, underprivileged, underserved, underdeveloped, low-­ income, poor, and impoverished community. Given existing theoretical and empirical knowledge, deprived communities in the wider sense can be classified in the following ways: • Communities that primarily refer to a concentration of poor inhabitants (low-­ income community, poor community, impoverished community, and disadvantaged neighbourhoods). This approach is most often seen in the United States. • Communities that are comparatively more poorly developed with respect to their surroundings and include a combination of individual statuses of citizens and structural features. These are deprived communities, and this approach is most prevalent in the United Kingdom. • Communities that have lower developmental outcomes, where consideration is given almost solely to structural factors (individual indicators are less present). This refers to underdeveloped and underserved communities. The term underdeveloped community is most often used in China.

246

A. Opačić

• Communities that have less chance of development: marginalised, underprivileged, and less favoured communities (used in the European Union). Here the focus is on structural factors and comparative developmental processes, not only development outcomes. • Communities at risk: remote, vulnerable communities. The term remote community is most often used in Canada and Australia, whereas the term vulnerable community increasingly refers to a community afflicted by an ecological catastrophe. Here too, in this group, the emphasis is on developmental risks, not on the comparative sense where exposure to risks to a lesser extent depends on the relationship towards the immediate surroundings. • Controversial communities in an urban setting: ghetto, favela, and slum. These communities are specific for North America (ghetto), South America (favela), and developing countries (slum). Though they began as a form of spatial segregation of poor citizens, they have a specific internal dynamic, high level of social disorganisation and noticeable spatial stigma. Due to these specificities, they are often used as a metaphor for numerous other communities throughout the world. Given all that has been said, a deprived community is deemed a community which has one of the following features: a significant number of inhabitants of low socioeconomic status, unfavourable developmental outcomes with respect to their surroundings, face structurally conditioned obstacles in development, exposed to serious destructive risks, and create an unfavourable existential environment. Operationalisation of deprived communities does not include all conceptual dimensions; hence, it is most often based on objective static indicators. These indicators are predominantly often derived as aggregated values at an individual level and used less as structural indicators. Measuring a deprived community relies on direct indicators (e.g. proportion of unemployed inhabitants), and sometimes a proxy variable (e.g. proportion of the population receiving financial assistance due to unemployment). Individual indicators most often refer to income, education, employment, housing, health, household structure, and crime rate. Community-­level indicators refer to community services, transport links, physical environment, and infrastructure. Deprived communities are ordinarily measured using a deprivation index which takes into account individual and structural indicators. Hence for that reason, we used it as an umbrella term in this book.

13.1.2  O  utcomes of a Deprived Community on the Well-Being of Citizens Social workers consider it important to know how a deprived community impacts the well-being of its inhabitants. We elaborate on this extensively in Chapter 2.

13  Conclusion: Full Profile of Social Work in Deprived Communities

247

Starting with the neighbourhood effect theory, the expectation is that a deprived community will leave unfavourable outcomes on the well-being of its members due to social, environmental, geographical, and institutional mechanisms. Much research indicates that this effect exists, meaning that life in a deprived community is a risk factor leading to lower economic status, poorer housing, lower education, higher vulnerability to crime, greater insecurity, poorer family and partner relationships, poorer health, poorer child development, greater mental health disorders, less healthy lifestyles, and greater exposure to pollution and ecological problems. The results indicate that opportunities provided to children and youth growing up in deprived communities are less than for those in more affluent communities. However, this linear interpretation should in no way satisfy us, and more research in social work is necessary in order to reveal complex trends between individuals and unfavourable surroundings. The community effect depends on numerous factors. For starters, individual biographies are important, that is, the person’s life trajectory, including how long has the person been living in the community? In what stage of life did the individual move into the deprived community? Did the individual move from a poorer or more affluent community? What is the person’s socioeconomic status with respect to other inhabitants? Of course, here too, there are no definite answers. Hence, in some areas of life, the community effect will be more important and less favourable if the person has been living longer in the community, whereas in other periods of life, it has no role. In some areas of life, inhabitants with a higher status will be at greater risk, whereas in other areas of personal well-being, the community effect will be felt more by inhabitants from a lower status. Moreover, the community effect will not be the same for every group, especially for all ethnic groups in a deprived community. The community effect is the total outcome of individual mechanisms, and though the effect for different groups of inhabitants can be the same, individual mechanisms creating it are different for every particular group. For instance, some of the inhabitants will be exposed to greater effects of social capital, whereas the level of infrastructural development will be more important for the other groups of inhabitants. The expectation is that unfavourable effects in one area of life will spill over into other areas of life, much like a domino effect. However, the community has protections which it uses to mitigate unfavourable effects of underdevelopment. The answer to the question as to what factors will have a more benevolent effect and which groups of inhabitants should be researched in all specific contexts. Given the ratio of risk and protection factors, not every deprived community has an equal level of harmful effects for the personal well-being of its inhabitants. The community effect also has an impact on the level of assistance necessary for individuals. We should mention that some research indicates that unfavourable effects in a deprived community do not necessarily mean positive effects in a developed community. Indeed, it may very well be that individual factors in developed communities have greater importance than environmental ones and that the environment is more important in underdeveloped communities. If we follow this conclusion, social workers in deprived communities must be much more involved in such communities than in developed areas.

248

A. Opačić

13.1.3  C  omplex Processes Inside and Outside Deprived Communities Social workers have learnt that when doing community practices, they should equally take into account outcomes and processes. In reality, social workers, theoretically and practically, have a greater sensibility towards processes. Processes are certainly the centre of any community practice and community development. There is almost a consensus in the scientific community about community processes and principles of work. However, deprived communities are characterised by complex relationships (within and outside the community), which poses the question as to what extent can principles such as participation, inclusion, ownership, autonomy, social justice, and non-violence be achieved. These issues are raised in Chapter 3, and particular principles specific for community practice in deprived communities are suggested. Regardless of the type of deprived community, the theoretical model for development of deprived communities is as follows: (a) Global and/or local factors jeopardise community development. These factors are ecological catastrophes, wars, pandemic, economic crisis, migration, and geographic position. (b) External actors use various mechanisms to maintain inequality in power relations and hold deprived communities in a state of underdevelopment. These mechanisms may include a high level of coercion, such as forced segregation of some inhabitants, ‘cleansing’ or removing communities, even legalised exploitation of community resources, and stigmatisation. Maintaining inequality can be done unintentionally by external actors when neutral and equal laws towards developed and undeveloped communities lessen the possibility of competition and maintain regional inequalities over the long term. (c) At the same time, a battle begins in the community for limited resources where internal inequalities and disorganisation appear. The population enters a cycle of powerlessness, human capacities are reduced, and inhabitants with more resources are more inclined to migrate out of the community. (d) At the same time, though ‘stratified’, the inhabitants have a sense of common identity. The more their surroundings perceive them to be different, the more they view themselves as being similar. The more the inhabitants perceive themselves as being similar, the more their surroundings consider them to be different. This leads to a deepening cycle of stigmatisation and self-stigmatisation. (e) A community that is exhausted due to internal and external inadequacies has increasingly less capacity to manage its own development and is less resilient and less adequately adapted to external influences, crises, and stressors. Consequently, inequalities between communities and their surroundings deepen and the cycle of deprivation continues. This internal progress directly jeopardises the basic principles of community development. Oppression of the community reduces autonomy and jeopardises the community’s right of ownership over processes. Furthermore, it reduces its ability to activate internal resources and base development on resources. Oppressive rela-

13  Conclusion: Full Profile of Social Work in Deprived Communities

249

tionships within a community threaten social justice, human rights, and culture of non-violence and anti-discrimination. Deprived communities can further marginalise and exclude already deprivileged social groups, thereby jeopardising solidarity and social cohesion. The overall ambient in the community is not an incentive for civic participation and activism, while social capital becomes disrupted. In these circumstances, social workers do not need new or different principles of community development, but it becomes obvious that they do need to make greater effort and express greater sensitivity. Continuity of work is a key factor to upbuilding a community’s fragile trust, strengthening and preserving it. Chapter 3 proposes specific principles for working with deprived communities.

13.2  Role of Social Work in Deprived Communities The practices presented by authors in this book articulate that the role of social work in deprived communities lies in the following tasks: (a) Social work has the task of helping to build basic community structures as detailed in Chapters 4 and 5. (b) Social work should insist on integration and oppose segregation of (new) community members as detailed in Chapters 6 and 7 (c) Social work should act across multiple levels and offer support to vulnerable communities and vulnerable individuals (see Chapters 8 and 9). (d) The professional community should invest in building capacities of local stakeholders, and social workers, by strengthening links with higher education institutions, supporting social workers in deprived communities, and encouraging collaborative multi-professional projects (Chapters 10, 11, and 12).

13.2.1  T  he Role of Social Work in Building Social Structures of Deprived Communities Community development is based on organised efforts invested by community members who are dedicated to achieving commonly set development goals. Civic activities and participation are the basic premise of community development. Nonetheless, to achieve it, social structures are needed as platforms enabling citizens to really participate while directing their participation precisely, in an organised manner, continually, and finally having an influence on the formulation of local policies and practices. Such structures very often already exist, but they need to be revived and revitalised. They can be traditional groups of citizens based on mutual help. Examples of these groups are explained in the chapters written by the authors from India, which presents the tradition of self-sufficient villages based on Gandhi’s model in Chapter 4 (Baiju P. Vareed) and the Republic of South Africa in Chapter 8 (P. Mafa, F.K. Matlakala, V. Mabvurira, and J.C. Makhubele). Authors explain these

250

A. Opačić

collective structures from the precolonial period, such as the tsima in South Africa, nhimbe and zunde ramambo in Zimbabwe, umuganda in Rwanda, harambe in Kenya, and ujamaa in Tanzania. Social workers can undertake activities to draw citizens closer to those structures possessing formal powers delegated by the state for running local communities, such as local councils and local self-governments. Vareed in Chapter 4 presents the model from India showing how representative bodies engage Gramsevak professionals or village workers whose role is to maintain contact with citizens and initiate development projects in a participatory manner. This role can also be assumed by social workers. Even when social workers are not directly included in the local self-government, it does not mean that they should not advocate a closer positioning of local powers towards citizens. Vareed in Chapter 4 and Matančević in Chapter 5 present the role of civil societies and the NGO sectors in initiating civic participation. Since the 1990s, we have been witnessing the expansion of civil society as a new form of local structure directly participating in community development. Civil society and the new voluntary sector are usually developed with great difficulty in deprived communities, mostly due to insufficient numbers of good quality professionals, despite available financial resources. Formalisation of cooperation and even to some extent the bureaucratisation of the NGO sector can be an obstacle for local leaders who want to become involved in community development. Therefore, support from social workers in deprived communities for the purpose of empowering local leadership is very important. In Chapter 5, Matančević talks about encouraging civic participation through new forms of organisation, that is, social innovation models that encourage a participatory response to social issues and present in practical terms a new organisational solution. Whether it involves authentic traditional models, political bodies, civil society organisations, and social innovations, social workers are important actors in deprived communities for the purpose of creating, maintaining, and strengthening local structures which enable targeted and sustainable civic participation. When these structures exist and operate within the community, the social fabric of the community is renewed, halting the vicious cycle of stagnation and powerlessness.

13.2.2  T  he Role of Social Work in Integrating and Combatting Segregation of (New) Community Members A group of authors from Finland (M. Leppänen, J. Kiviranta, A. Metteri, P. Stepney, and T.  Kostiainen) and authors from the United States (O.  Gonzalez Benson and C.  Burnett) present in Chapters 5 and 6, respectively, practices adopted by social workers when working with migrants and refugees. This has been an especially important topic over the last few years, and the historical origin of deprived communities undoubtedly shows a genesis of development from ethnic segregation to deprived local communities. Even today, there is a threat of refugee camps becoming the new ghetto communities throughout the world. Social workers are among the first professionals who run the process of integrating refugees and migrants into commu-

13  Conclusion: Full Profile of Social Work in Deprived Communities

251

nities. This process is very sensitive, and political pragmatism can easily lead to integration practices becoming segregation practices. Both of the mentioned chapters show the importance of a different type of social work, a social work stemming from institutionalised and bureaucratic chains and is increasingly more active within the community among the inhabitants and taking place ‘out in the field’. The three fundamental determinants of community social work in this area are working with the inhabitants and the community, working with migrants and refugees, and building relationships. The host community at the time of accepting migrants or refugees does not have sufficient development services, often involving poorer neighbourhoods, sometimes its inhabitants expressing resistance, those who are already exhausted from earlier inequalities and find it difficult to accept any new members. On the other hand, social workers are expected to build a relationship of trust with new members of the community and ensure full practical and daily assistance. The community should become a home instead of a place to reside, where inhabitants as new members should no longer be considered newcomers but neighbours. This process can occur spontaneously without interference from professionals, but the practice taking place over a number of centuries provides caution that there is a great chance of this not happening. Indeed, new members can begin to consider the community as a concentration camp instead of a home, while inhabitants may view people as infiltrators and a threat instead of neighbours. The role of social work in this sensitive process is very important. Professionals are expected to coordinate work on both sides, facilitating communication and cooperation, until these relationships become rooted or organically binding. Both of the mentioned chapters emphasise the importance of relationships, creativity in the community, analytical thinking, and a high level of sensibility to let the community and its new members have their say. Both groups of authors point out that social work should step out from well-rehearsed solutions, whereas new models for new situations should be courageously propagated, which the Finnish authors call “experimentation and shared action for social change” and the American authors call “emergence-based approach”. This approach makes it impossible to work only with the individual or community, but the role of social work is to find, in a common realm with a continual presence and by hearing the actors, what is acceptable to both sides. All communities, as is the case with deprived communities, are continually undergoing a process of change. However, less developed communities find it difficult to change and, indeed, fear change due to insufficient internal capacities. Numerous post-war communities in Croatia have experienced a total change of population structure, whereas inhabitants have cognitively remained in the community as it once was or remained in a mythical community from which they migrated. Even decades later, there is still an awareness that the community has radically changed, but an atmosphere of alienation can be sensed in the air. The role and also responsibility of social work is that the community space, familiar to use, becomes deconstructed and transformed into a different symbolic space acceptable to those who arrive and to those who welcome them. These changes are essential for the well-being of everyone in the community, with the right proportion of ‘old’ and ‘new’ in a community’s restructured identity.

252

A. Opačić

13.2.3  H  igher Structural Level of Work in Deprived Communities: Helping Vulnerable Individuals and Vulnerable Communities Social work in deprived communities is based more on generalist practice and less on specialist practice. When social workers work in an environment with less accessible resources, they should try to act at as many high levels as possible using numerous models at their disposal. Deprived communities are a complex phenomenon, and community effects on individual well-being are manifold. In Chapter 8, authors P. Mafa, F.K. Matlakala, V. Mabvurira, and J.C. Makhubele demonstrate the possibilities and challenges in applying different models in community practices, specifically in deprived communities. These authors state that social workers simultaneously apply models of community development, community education, social action, social planning, and social marketing. Given that community activities most often take place within projects, the authors provide reasoning to base sustainable community projects on identifying capacities and power while utilising a proactive and optimistic approach, strengthening the sense of community, empowering women, and enabling inclusion of marginalised groups in the community. These practical models simultaneously strengthen community processes and lead to better outcomes, that is, new social services, fulfilling real needs of the inhabitants, financial empowerment, and improving quality of life. Keeping in mind the numerous needs of inhabitants in deprived communities, social workers are called to mobilise various models, methods, and resources to respond to such needs. In a similar way in Chapter 9, N. Žganec talks about the need for empowering inhabitants at various levels but clearly expounds the need for empowering deprived communities as a whole. The causes of problems are often found outside the actual community, and social workers should join advocacy processes when policies are formulated for regional development and social welfare forms. The social welfare system should be based on a legislative framework to eliminate typical issues in providing social services to deprived communities. Social services are inaccessible in deprived communities, there is an insufficient number of professionals to provide them, and they are inadequately coordinated. Often times professionals establish well-developed cooperation in smaller, poorer neighbourhoods, but rigid centralised systems prevent them from doing so (e.g. the police, education, social welfare, health care). Moreover, more resources should be invested across a wider social level to make services available, even if not economically feasible. Digital or teleservices can partially compensate for insufficient traditional services but need to be regulated and managed. In addition, social workers should mobilise themselves and advocate for reducing inequalities and combatting oppressive practices towards deprived communities, even when such practices do not stem from their proximate sectors. For instance, policies on relocating and segregation of refugees can be regulated by the ministries of internal affairs and defence. In addition, the ministry of agriculture can regulate rights on the use of local resources and food production, while the ministry of energy and environmental protection is assigned for policies on the storage and recycling of waste, whereas the sector for transport and telecommunications is involved in the development of transport and digital infrastructure.

13  Conclusion: Full Profile of Social Work in Deprived Communities

253

13.2.4  B  uilding Capacities and Supporting Social Workers in Deprived Communities Being a social worker in a deprived community is not that simple. Working with insufficient resources, experiencing professional isolation, the inability to demarcate private from personal relationships, the absence of personal privacy, and working under the scrutiny of inhabitants with numerous needs as well as a small number of professionals who can help them are just some of the most common professional challenges. In Chapter 11, G. Schmidt presents in a vivid manner everything that makes social work a challenge in the remote arctic, indigenous, and industrial regions of Canada. The professional community has the task of providing comprehensive support to social workers in deprived communities during their careers. The principles and standards of professional practices should take into account the reality in which they work while respecting that the space can have a decisive impact on the essence of social work. In Chapter 10, the authors C.  Luca Sugawara and A. Opačić point out the common role of higher education institutions in strengthening capacities in vulnerable communities. The academic community provides its contribution though learning programmes in the community, encouraging availability of formal and ongoing education for social work, especially through distance learning, and participating in collaborative research projects. At the same time, including higher education organisations as partners in deprived communities helps to build capacities with numerous other professionals, community leaders, and citizens themselves. Finally, social work has one other important task in building capacities, which is to connect experts from various professions into common multi-professional projects as detailed in Chapter 12. Social work is actually one of the rare professions which cannot complete the business processes on its own and is always in some way directed to cooperation with other experts. Social work is a process-based profession, a facilitator of social change, and adhesive for gathering various professionals. This position is also an obstacle and advantage for social work. During their education, social work students continually enter the realm of discoveries from other disciplines, and the expectation is that these will contribute to the social realm by adding value. This role in deprived communities is especially emphasised and in a relatively small living space can be very easily and quickly identified as the effects from one social realm spillover into another.

13.3  T  he Professional Identity of Social Workers in Deprived Communities To be a social worker in deprived communities is a special experience in the true sense of the word. Social workers enter a realm which comprises inhabitants who need to be empowered, awakened, and motivated, a realm to be organised or supplemented into a community, to stand on its own feet, needing advocacy and clearly

254

A. Opačić

resisting inequalities to which it is exposed. At the same time, social workers not only enter a contentious realm, but also a realm which is exotic, unique, and, in many ways, special. Every action and indeed every omission by social workers reveal a lot. This type of social work appears as a multidimensional, creative, and holistic, somehow like returning to the tradition of the Chicago School of Sociology where professionals, scientists, and inhabitants together created a collective symbiosis and where the community was practically a living laboratory for developing social work as a profession. In a deprived community, the social worker has the opportunity to discover again all the potentials and values of the social work profession. This area of practice should receive a separate chapter in textbooks on social work and community practices. Everything we know about social work cannot be simply applied in a specific context, nor everything we know about community development. Importantly, not only should there be research on practices, but also on the phenomenology of deprived communities, as well as profiling and making professionals recognisable, those directly contributing to improving the quality of life in these challenging communities throughout the world. Investing into future generations of professionals is important, those who will work in these mentioned areas, as well as preparing them for particular challenges they will encounter. Deprived communities are a reflection of global society. All that happens at the global level, all the burdens of inequality and global balances, eventually occur in vulnerable human communities that have nothing with which to mitigate them, no one to convey their situation; they have no one from whom to draw some of the resources they lack. Social work in these situations has an opportunity to show its transformative potential as seen by a significant part of our global professional community.

Index

A Active citizenship, 111 Active collaboration, 133 Addressing poverty, 156 Administrative boundaries, 179 Administrative inclusion, 147 Advocacy, 148, 149 Affectivity vs. affective neutrality, 177 Africa community work (see Community work) rural communities, 155 African collective finger theory, 158 Alternative institutions, 149 Anticolonialism, 73 Asset-based community development (ABCD), 27 Assistentialism, 230 Attractiveness, 80 Authentic traditional models, 250 B Backwardness, 25 C Canada climate change, 210 coastal arctic communities, 210 communities, 212 development, 211 economic activity, 209 indigenous communities, 210, 211 population growth, 210 province, 211

remote communities, 211 remote parts, 211 social workers, 212 underdevelopment, 210, 219 in urban areas, 210 Canadian Association of Social Workers (CASW), 213 Canadian single industry, 214 Canada social work, 215 Capability Poverty Measure, 180 Capacity-building programmes, 186, 230 Cardiovascular morbidity, 180 Centre for Research and Development (CRD), 102 Child Opportunity Index, 21 Citizen participation, 109, 112, 113 Citizenship, 111 Civic education, 196–198 Civic engagement, 194, 196, 197 Civil societies, 110, 139, 143, 144, 250 Civil society organizations (CSOs), 107–109 Clientelism, 82 Climate change, 39 Climate Vulnerability Index, 15 Coastal communities, 39 Collaboration, 182 challenges, 224 disciplines and professions, 224 heterogeneous, 225 inter-professional, 225–227 multi-professional, 225 organizational forms, 236 possibilities and levels, 224 professionals, 224 Collaborative projects, 224

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 A. Opačić (ed.), Practicing Social Work in Deprived Communities, European Social Work Education and Practice, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-65987-5

255

256 Communalism, 157–159 Communities, 179–181, 193 concept, 177 definition, 177 difficulties, 3, 4 global scale, 4–7 local, 3 participation, 184 social work, 3 space, 3 unfavourable environment, 29 Community advisors, 128, 132 Community-based accompaniment (CBA), 144–148, 150 Community-based approaches, 156 Community-based development projects, 103 Community-based movement, 108 Community-based organizations (CBOs), 231 Community-based participatory research (CBPR), 151 Community-based research (CBR), 194, 196–198, 200 collaboration, 197 Community building, 70 Community deprivation index, 15–19 Community development, 107–109, 116, 158, 160, 183, 249 ABCD model, 27 challenges, 161 civil society organizations, 112 community life, 160 community members, 160, 161 co-production, 112 definition, 160 discursive shift, 111 governance, 112 governing demands, 111 inhabitants/indicators assessment, 28 internal development processes, 26 mutual support, 160 optimistic spirit, 27 political decision-makers, 160 power imbalances, 111–112 self-help, 160 social ills, 160 stakeholders, 27 strengthening relationships, 27 unfavourable outcome, 26 Community development initiatives, 112 Community development principles implementation challenges deficit capacities and resources, 74 empirical researches, 74

Index oppression, 74–76 oppressive relationships, 76–78 reduced sense of belonging, 79–81 reduced social cohesion, 78–79 Community development process, 108 Community development professionals, 117 Community-driven development projects, 103 Community education, 161–163 Community empowerment, 28 Community engagement, 196, 197 Community growth, 158 Community intervention development, 72 Community-led initiatives, 108 Community-level indicators, 246 Community life, 160 Community members, 160–163, 178, 194 Community mobilisation, 70 Community organisation, 70 Community ownership, 72, 74 Community participation, 94 Community resilience, 27 Community service, 20, 148, 150 Community social work, 70, 71, 131, 136 Community work attribute, 157–159 communalism, 157–159 concept, 159 definition, 160 and development, 160–161 and education, 161–163 laws and policies, 166–167 political engagement, 160 practices, 159 professional social work, 160 social action, 163, 164 social marketing, 165 social planning, 164, 165 Competencies courage and flexibility, 130 individual level, 129 organisational level, 129 social work, 128, 129 Competencies in social work definitions, 124 experiential and collaborative learning process, 122 Kototori, 122, 123 skills, 124 social work, 124 social work practitioners, 121–123 social worker and social instructor, 124 Complex communities, 146 Composite measures, 9, 28

Index Conscientization process, 195 Consultation, 186 Contextuality, 125 Cooperative Societies Act, 167 Cooperatives Act, 166 Co-production, 113 Coronary heart disease, 180 Council on Social Work Education’s Educational Policy and Accreditation Standards [CSWE EPAS], 193 Courage, 130 COVID-19 pandemic crisis, 26 Creativity and creative analysis, 133 Crime and misdemeanours cover, 20 Critical thinking and interaction, 126 Cumulative approach, 28 Curriculum, 234 Cycle of deprivation, 248 D Dangerous sport, 40 Decision-making process, 98, 195 Defend groups, 193 Department of Cooperative Governance, 166 Deprivation, 179, 180 Deprived communities, 28, 39, 162, 163, 179–185, 187, 245 definition, 9, 28, 246 global challenge, 28 interdisciplinary interest, 4 life opportunities, 54, 55 operationalisation (see Operationalisation approaches) problem-based approach, 9 semantic analysis, 9 specific groups, 8, 9 unfavourable environment, 29 Deprived neighbourhood/community, 15 Deprived neighbourhoods, 8, 38 Deprived rural communities, 163 Detailed project report (DPR), 98 Development index, 19 Development processes empowerment authentic relationship, 83 community development theory, 81 external professionals and organisations, 82 interpersonal and inter-institutional relationships, 81 keynote, 82 local resources, 82

257 participatory citizenship, 82 political framework, 82 professional authority, 82 professionals, 83 representatives, 83 rewarding and recognition system, 83 rituals and events, 83 traditions and desires, 82 trust and change balance, 82 violence and adherence, 83 Developmental inequalities deprived social power, 24 legal exploitation, 25 power through enforcement mechanisms, 24, 25 stigmatisation, 25 unequal opportunities, 26 Devolution revolution, 186 Digitalisation, 41 Direct economic changes, 182 Direct services, 182 Disadvantaged communities, 4, 15, 40, 50, 51 adolescence, 41 affluence, 46 BMI, 48 delinquent behaviour, 42 diet/physical activity, 52 health risk, 53 high-risk health behaviour, 47 infectious diseases, 47 inhabitants, 42, 43, 45–47, 53, 58 living, 48 natural catastrophes, 49 physical health, 46 poverty, 43, 44 predictor, 49 risk factors, 40 transportation, 40 underdevelopment, 41 violence, 41 youth, 42 Disadvantaged neighbourhood, 4, 15, 38 Discursive shifts, 112 Dual degree programme, 234, 235 E Economic self-sufficiency, 142 Education, 19 Education deprivation, 180 Education system for Africans, 157 Educational opportunities, 57 Effective intervention, 182

Index

258 Emergence-based approach (EBA), 145–148, 150 Emphasize rational analysis, 145 Employment, 19 Employment services, 143 refugees, 142, 143 Empowering communities, 183 Empowering groups, 183 Empowering individuals, 183 Empowering organisations, 183 Empowerment, 170, 181–184, 186, 194 Engaging communities, 103 Environmental mechanisms, 37 Environmental Vulnerability Index, 14 Eradicate poverty, 157 Eradicating poverty, 156 ESL classes, 142 Ethnic minorities, 181 European deprived communities, 80 European study SHARE, 20 Experimental working culture, 126 Experiment-driven project, 124 External stereotypes, 26 External support, 82 F False choice urbanism, 24 Famine, 155 Federal funding, 141 Finnish legislation, 130 Finnish society, 122 Fly-in fly-out work (FIFO), 214 Forced migration, 24 Formal social capital, 184 Formative adolescent, 60 Foster community ownership, 195 Free public libraries, 185 G Gandhian principles, 94 Gemeinschaft, 178 Gender Empowerment Measure and Service Deprivation Index, 180 Gentrification, 24 Geographical mechanisms, 38 Ghettos, 8 backdrop, 13 characteristics, 13 ethnic segregation and violence, 13 fundamental aspects, 13 informally led camp, 14

inhabitants, 14 migrant camps, 13 potent collective identity machine, 14 spatial segregation, 13 theoretical concept, 13 Venice, 13 Global urban strategy, 24 Governance, 112 Government-initiated projects, 101 Gram Panchayat, 96, 98 Gram Sabhas, 96 Gram Swaraj, 96 Green economy, 26 Group Areas Act 41 of 1950, 157 H HABITAT project, 51 Harambe, 158 Health, 20 Health deprivation, 180 Higher education institutions (HEI) and LCCD (see Local capacity for community development (LCCD)) defend groups, 193 professional development, 200–202 public role, 193 service-learning pedagogy, 193 social work education, 193, 194 university curricula, 193 vulnerable communities, 194 Hispanic community, 51 Homelands, 157 Homelessness, 229 Household food insecurity access scale (HFIAS), 52 Household structure, 20 Housing, 20 Human capital, 194 Human development poverty, 156, 177 Human Poverty Index, 180 Human rights, 181, 182 I ICT technology, 185 Implicit agreements, 83 Income covering household, 19 Income inequality, 183 Income poverty, 156 Incorporation, 186 Indian Act, 213 Indigenous African people, 158

Index Indigenous communities, 24 Indirect change, 182 Indirect community work practices, 73 Industrialization, 234 Inequalities, 39, 59, 77, 155 Inequality acts, 26 Informal social capital, 184 Information communications technology (ICT), 161 Institutional mechanisms, 38 Insufficient community participation civic action, 79 community development, 78 community initiated activities, 79 community-led approach, 78 deprived communities, 79 educated professionals, 79 inhabitants, 78 insufficient institutional support, 79 social norms, 78 sustainable relationships, 78 underdevelopment, 78 Integration, 182, 183, 185, 186 Interconnectedness, 158 Interdisciplinarity collaboration, 224 Internal development processes, 27 International Bill of Human Rights, 156 International Federation of Social Workers (IFSW), 181 Interorganisational practice, 186 Interpersonal social interactions, 179 Inter-professional collaboration, 236 Intrapersonal empowerment, 184 K Kototori, 121–124, 127, 128, 130, 131, 134, 136 L Labour market, 142 The Lane Report, 70 Learned helplessness, 168 Lehlabile project, 166 Less favoured area, 8, 15 Lived Poverty Index, 180 Local capacity for community development (LCCD) CBR, 196–198 civic education, 196–198 community characteristics, 195 conscientization process, 195

259 decision-making processes, 195 foster community ownership, 195 functioning capacity, 195 local universities, 195 OECD-DAC, 195 resource allocation and accessibilities, 195 self-identified challenges/ opportunities, 195 service learning, 195–198 social processes, 194 and social work education, 198–200 transformational capacity, 195 Local communities, 164, 165 Local community encompasses religion, 178 Local governments, 107 Local universities, 195 Long-distance commuting (LDC), 214 Longitudinal research, 80 Low-income neighbourhoods, 55, 57 M Macro practice, 182 Malaysian neighbourhoods, 53 Marginalisation index, 19 Marginalised communities, 19 Market-led approach, 109 Master’s degree programme, 124 Material deprivation, 180 Merit-based statuses, 178 Migrant-run CBOs aims, 231 broad-based planning, 231 capacity building, 232 civic inequalities, 231 collaborations, 233 collective approach, 233 development and supports, 233 disciplinary differences, 233 disciplines, 232 empirical data, 232 in-depth survey, 232 integrative approach, 232 mainstream local institutions, 232 migrant community leaders, 232 PAR, 231, 232 research and capacity building, 232 size/budgets, 232 social work and urban planning, 233 tasks and activities, 233 transdisciplinary process, 233 Migrants vs. local agencies, 232 Mortality, 180

Index

260 Multidimensional Poverty Index, 180 Multidisciplinarity collaboration, 82, 224 Multiple deprivation, 180 Multi-professional collaboration, 225 Municipal Structures Act, 166 N National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development (NABARD), 102 The 1988 National Constituent Assembly, 230 National Fund for Social Interest Housing (FNHIS), 230 National Longitudinal Survey of Youth, 57 National System of Social Interest Housing (SNHIS), 230 Natives Land Act of 1913, 157 Neighbourhood disadvantage, 39, 41, 44–46, 48–50, 52, 54, 57 measurement, 20 Neighbourhood effect, 37, 38, 58–60, 247 Nigerian rural communities, 159 Non-governmental organizations (NGOs), 93, 100 Normative orientations, 70 O OECD-DAC, 195 Office of Refugee Resettlement (US ORR), 141, 142 Operationalisation approaches, 246 community development tracking measures, 15 deprived communities, 28 earlier mentioned terms, 9, 10 reserved communities concepts, 11 single-variable solutions, 10, 11 subjective and process indicators, 20, 21 Oppression communication, 75 communities exploitation, 76 developmental inequalities, 76 domestic market, 76 external actors, 75 external interventions, 74 gentrification, 75 intervention, 75 market changes, 76 nuclear and radioactive waste depot, 75 policy, 75 pollution and devastation, 75 populations, 75

practices, 76 radical approach, 75 resources, 75 Oppressive relationships behavioural disorders, 77 clientelistic, 77 deteriorated communities, 77 dominant theoretical frameworks, 77 inequality, 77 population, 77 social norms internalisation, 77 social resources, 77 urban and rural communities, 77 Organic communities, 178 P Panchayati Raj Act, 96 Paniya, 102 Participation, 186 challenges, 103, 104 community development, 93, 94 participatory development, 94 rights, 93 Participatory action research (PAR), 231 Participatory democracy, 110 Participatory Forest Management (PFM), 101 Participatory Learning and Action (PLA), 101 Participatory monitoring and evaluation (PME), 101 Participatory research, 151 Participatory resource management (PRM), 101 Participatory rural appraisal (PRA), 101, 102 Participatory technology development (PTD), 101 Partnership in Sexual Health (PSH), 101 Physical environment, 20 Piplantri’s transformation, 95 Policy priority, 142, 143 Political action, 170 Political decision-makers, 160 Political engagement, 160 Poor governance, 155 Poor local communities, 163, 164 Poor neighbourhoods, 48 Poorer communities, 39 Positionality, 212 Poverty community work (see Community work) social development, 156, 157 social work, 156, 157 Poverty reduction

Index life and reduced apathy, 168, 169 recognition of strengths, 167, 168 sense of togetherness (see Sense of togetherness) societal ostracization, 172 women empowerment, 170, 171 Power in mutual relationships, 144 Power relations, 163, 164 Pre-disaster readiness plans, 228 Preschoolers, 156 Prevention deterioration, 181 Principles of community development anticolonialism, 73 characteristics, 71 client’s right, 69 community-based participatory research, 73 community building elements, 71 community organisation, 70 community work foundations, 72 comprehensive presentations, 72 defined need-based development, 72 ethical principles, 71 groups, 74 indirect community work practices, 73 interventions, 73 local and national systems, 73 normative orientation, 70 opportunities, 70 practices and processes, 69 profession values, 73 projects through open communication, 73 social workers behavior, 69 structural and institutional changes, 71 types, 71 value orientation, 70 value-orientated community, 72 value-orientated foundations, 69 work practices, 70 Private and public social investments, 155 Procedural knowledge, 126 Professional role, 116 Professional collaborations, Brazil assistentialism, 230 community agreement, 229 constitutional amendment, 230 homelessness, 229 housing agencies, 229 informal settlements, 229 innovative and progressive legislation, 230 inter- and transdisciplinary, 229

261 participatory action research, 230 participatory master plans, 230 slum upgrading, 229 social workers, 229 Professional collaborations, US challenges, 228 community resilience, 228 disaster planning, 228 low-income neighbourhoods, 227 settlement house movement, 227, 228 transportation funding, 228 urban redevelopment programmes, 228 urban revitalization policies, 228 Professional development, 200–202 Professional interventions, 108 Professional role and identity, 244 Professional transformation, 134 Professionalization, 234 Professionals, 115, 116 Professionals Social work, deprived communities, 254 Profit implies, 158 Project collaboration, 236 Project-focused work, 217 Proxy variable, 10 Q Quality of life, 177 Quality of life index, 19 Quality vs. performance, 178 R Rajiv Awas Yojana (RAY) scheme, 98 Rapid Rural Appraisal (RRA), 101 RCOs, 147, 148 Reception and Placement Programme (R&P), 142 Reciprocity, 158 Reconstruction Development Programme (RDP), 166 Reduced sense of belonging auto-stigmatisation, 81 European deprived communities, 80 inhabitants, 80, 81 local identity, 80, 81 low-income urban neighbourhoods, 80 physical environment, 80 relationships, 79, 81 social stratification, 80 space and sojourning habits, 80 SPOTLIGHT project, 80

262 Re-envisioning social work RA, 146–148 Reflective collaboration, 135 Reflexivity, 125 Refugee communities, 147 Refugee resettlement, 139–143 Refugee-led community organizations (RLOs), 140, 143, 144, 147, 148 Refugee-serving organizations (RSOs), 146, 147 Regional Councils of Social Services, 230 Regional preference, 4 Relation-based social work, 130 Relevant substantive knowledge, 126 Remote communities, 8, 14, 179–181, 184, 185, 187, 215 Remoteness, 14 Reserved, 11 Resettled refugee communities institutions, 139 practitioners, 140 RAs, 140–143 RLOs, 140 scholars, 140 simple community mode, 140 social workers, 139 in the United States, 139 Resettlement agencies (RAs), 140 affiliates, 141 direct services, 141 employment services for refugees, 142, 143 policy and service, 141 R&P, 142 re-envisioning social work, 146–148 RLOs, 143, 144 services, 142 social work practice (see Social work practice with refugees) social workers, 141 US DOS, 141 US ORR, 141 Resettlement workers, 142 Resource bookers, 142 Ross’s approach, 71 Rural and remote social workers, 179 Rural areas, 179 Rural communities, 181 Rurality, 179 S Scholarly collaborations CBOs, 231 Scientific papers, 4

Index Self-determination, 69, 70 Self-help, 159 Self-management, 231 Self-sufficiency, 142, 143 Sense of togetherness collective action and co-operation, 170 empowerment, 170 groups and networks, 169 information and communication, 170 political action, 170 social capital, 169 social cohesion and inclusion, 170 trust and solidarity, 169 Sentimental mourning, 177 Service learning, 193–204 HEI (see Higher education institutions (HEI)) Service-learning education, 193, 194 Service-learning pedagogy, 193, 195 Sets of variables, 177 Settlement house movement, 228 Shaped by neo-liberal ideology, 109 Simple community mode, 140 Single deprivations, 180 Single-industry towns, 214 Slum boundaries, 12 Slums African and Asian, 12 circumstances, 12 civilisation problems, 13 community development challenge, 13 criteria, 11, 12 definition, 11 forming, 12 impoverished people, 11 inhabitants, 11, 12 rural, 13 settlement, 12 spatial and infrastructural aspects, 12 tendency, 12 UN-HABITAT programme, 12 Small businesses, 164 Small Enterprise Development Agency, 169 Smart social services, 184–186 Social action, 159, 160, 163, 164 Social capital, 78, 80, 169, 170, 180, 183 Social change, 197 Social cohesion community underdevelopment, 78 developmental activities, 78 inequality, 78 social disorganisation, 78 Social comparison theory, 60 Social deprivation, 180 Social development, 156, 157, 183

Index Social disorganisation, 26, 55, 59, 236 Social exclusion, 156, 180, 194 Social fabrics, 155 Social homogenisation, 181 Social ills, 161 Social innovation, 113–116 Social Insurance Institution of Finland (SII), 132 Social justice, 181, 197 Social marketing, 159, 160, 165 Social networks, 59, 132 Social planning, 159, 160, 164, 165 Social Progress Index, 209 Social sciences, 4 Social services, 166 Social Services Federal Council, 230 Social structures/legislations, 163 Social work, 26, 29, 144, 155–157 community organisation, 70 consensus, 81 distinct and integrative, 233 internal and external, 70 profession, 155, 223 (re)orientation, 182 social conditions, 234 theoretical knowledge, 223 urban policies, 229 value ‘biased’ profession, 69 value-based determinants, 69 Social work competencies, 126, 135 Social work education, 202–203 and LCCD, 198–200 Social work educators, 194 Social work managers, 147 Social work practice, 209 assessment, 216, 217 Canadian social work, 213 community, 216 country economies, 218 indigenous communities, 212 positionality, 212 Social work practice with refugees advocacy, 148, 149 alternative institutions, 149 community service, 150 neighbours/social capital, 150, 151 participatory research, 151 re-envisioning social work, 146–148 volunteerism, 150 Social work practitioners, 133 Social work profession, 181–184 Social work, deprived communities academic community, 253

263 building capacities, 253 civic activities and participation, 249 civil societies, 250 classification, 245 community development, 252 community practice, 244 complex and dynamic processes, 243 concepts, 245 controversial communities, 246 developed and underdeveloped communities, 244 developed communities, 251 ethnic groups, 247 features, 246 formalisation, 250 generic character, 245 ghetto communities, 250 global society, 254 individual–collective relationship, 243 inequality gap, 244 inhabitants, 247 internal progress, 248 linear interpretation, 247 literature, 245 migrants and refugees, 251 operationalisation, 246 outcomes and processes, 248 phenomenology, 254 practical models, 252 practice, 243 principles, 249 principles and standards, 253 professional community, 254 professional identity, 253 professionals, 252 proximate sectors, 252 resources, 253 risk factor, 247 role, 249, 251 scientific community, 248 self-governments, 250 social structures, 249 socioeconomic status, 247 theoretical model, 248 type, 245, 248 unfavourable effects, 247 Social workers, 3, 139, 143, 144, 161–163, 185, 218, 219 Socially disorganised communities, 56 Societal ostracization, 172 Society, 178 Socioeconomic disadvantage, 179 Socioeconomic factors, 183

Index

264 Socioeconomic sequelae, 179 Sociological consequences, 178 Sociologists, 177 Socio-territorial diagnosis, 230 Spatial stigma, 25 Specialized resources, 218 Specificity vs. diffusion, 178 Spirituality, 158 SPOTLIGHT project, 80 Stakeholders, 195, 217 State of mechanical solidarity, 177 State-of-the-art technological solutions, 40 Statutory welfare systems, 158 Stigmatisation, 25 local communities, 165 Stress, 179 Structural analysis and approach, 71 Structural barriers and inequalities, 72 Structural factors community, 21 globalisation, 21 local development, 23 marginalisation, 23 motorways building, 23 refugee ghettos, 23 spatial isolation, 21 threat and opportunity, 23 Structural inequalities, 74 Structural limitations, 74 Subjective and process indicators, 20 Substantive knowledge, 126 Sustainable development, 81 Sustainable development goals (SDGs), 155 T TEKO project, 122 Territorial stigmatisation, 25 Theoretical framework, deprived communities community development, 21 community’s response, 21 concepts, 21 developmental inequalities, 23–26 internal development processes, 26–27 operationalisation, 28 structural factors, 21–23 Theory of anomie, 177 Theory of structural functionalism, 177 Token participation, 99 Tonnies dichotomy, 177 Transdisciplinarity collaboration, 224, 233 Tribal and mutual aid societies, 158 Trump Administration, 144

Tsima, 158 Tyranny of space, 200 U Ubuntu, 158 Ujamaa, 158 Umuganda, 158 Underdeveloped communities, 8, 51 Undeveloped infrastructure, 40 UN-HABITAT programme, 12 United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) Human Development Index, 180 United Nations Environment Program, 14 Universalism vs. particularism, 178 Urban local bodies (ULB), 98 Urban planning architecture, 234 complementarity, 234 engineering, 234 innovation, 235 interdisciplinarity, 234 physical infrastructure, 234 Urban planning professionals, 231 Urban redevelopment programmes, 228 The Urban Reform Movement, 230 Urban social work practice, 215 Urbanization, 234 US Department of State (DOS), 141 V Variables, 10 community level, 20, 28 individual level, 19, 20, 28 Village Development Committees (VIDCOs), 167 Village-level community, 92 Violence, 41 Virtual environment, 185 Voluntary agencies, 104 Voluntary organizations, 100 Volunteerism, 150 Vulnerability index, 19 Vulnerable communities, 14, 15, 194 capacity for development, 194 CBR, 196–198 civic education, 196–198 definition, 194 professional development, 200–202 service learning, 196–198 Vulnerable groups, 156

Index W Ward Development Committees (WADCOs), 167 Web of Science database, 15 Welfare services, 157 Welfare theory, 107 Welfare-to-work policy, 142 Well-being, 37, 38, 43 White Paper for Social Welfare, 156, 166 White Paper on Local Government, 166

265 White Paper on Reconstruction and Development, 166 White Paper on Social Welfare, 166 Women empowerment, 170, 171 Z Zimbabwe, 167 Zunde ramambo, 158