Benefits of Community Social Work

What is community social work and what do you understand as some of its potential benefits?

The concept of community social work is not new and has continuously been a significant focus on the development of social work practice. Firstly, this essay will discuss the complex concept of community and why being a part of a community is an important factor in people’s lives, considering concepts such as Social Capital, poverty, identity and belonging. It will also attempt to address what community social work is and why it is an essential approach in social work services, paying special attention to anti-oppressive practice, the ecological model and empowerment. Finally, this essay uses the Serenity Café as an example to demonstrate the potential benefits and possible challenges to social work in the community.

Get Help With Your Essay

If you need assistance with writing your essay, our professional essay writing service is here to help!
Find out more about our Essay Writing Service

The concept of Community can mean something to one person and can be interpreted completely differently by another. The word community comes from the Latin words ‘com’ and ‘munis’ which mean together and to serve. Therefore, community means to serve together. Nowadays the concept of community has become significantly more difficult to define with copious amounts of definitions found in the social science literature (Cohen 1985; Bell & Newby 1971). Traditionally, community meant the place where you live and where you look after one another around you. For example, a neighbourhood or a small village. German Sociologist Tonnies (1940) categorised this type of community as ‘Gemeinshaft’. According to Tonnies, social connections between people weakened as places developed and industrialised. This meant that people became more detached from each other. He called this type of society ‘Gesellshaft’. Mattessich and Monsey (2004) define community as ‘people who live within a geographically defined area and who have social and psychological ties with each other and with the place where they live.’ (Mattessich & Monsey 2004:56). This definition is based mainly on the place where people live. However, Lee & Newby (2005) argue that just because people live in the same neighbourhood does not automatically mean they have even met one another or have any shared interests. They argue that it is the connections and relationships between individuals and the sense of shared identity that is believed to be one of the most significant aspects of community. Silk’s (1999:6) interpretation of community encompasses these concepts: ‘common needs and goals, a sense of common good, shared lives, culture and views of the world and collective action.’ Bellah and his colleague’s definition also highlights the importance of relationships: ‘a group of people who are socially interdependent, who participate together in discussion and decision making, and who share certain practices that both define the community and are nurtured by it’ (Bellah, Madsen, Sullivan, Swidler & Tipton 1985:333). Today, technology and online communication has allowed people to come together through shared interest or bond even if they do not live in close proximity to each other. This type of communication has brought about ‘virtual communities’ and supports the development of what Giddens (1991) describes as a more individualist and reflexive society. Researching the word community results in an abundance of definitions and various theories and each one differs from the next. However, most definitions agree that people are at the centre of community and that place, identity and relationships are a core component. Although the meaning of community can bring about positive feelings and descriptions, communities can also be intimidating places where inequalities exist. Community can mean exclusion and struggle along with belonging and unity.

Being a part of a community can be an important aspect in people’s lives for a variety of reasons. Emile Durkheim (1987), a French sociologist, demonstrated the important connection between community and an individual’s mental health and wellbeing. Durkheim found that social integration was a major factor in suicide rates and that those who felt isolated from society and lacked a feeling of belonging were much more prone to committing suicide. This early and influential study highlights how wider social factors have an impact on people’s lives and how social relationships can affect feelings of identity and belonging. The term ‘Social Capital’ is used today to refer to this concept. The concept first appeared by Lyda Hanifan (1916) in his discussions on rural school community and defines Social Capital as, ‘those tangible assets [that] count for most in the daily lives of people: namely goodwill, fellowship, sympathy, and social intercourse among the individuals and families who make up a social unit’ (1916:130). The term became more commonly used from the workings of Jacobs (1962), Bourdieu (1983) and Coleman (1988) but the term was popularised by Putnam’s (2000) book ‘Bowling alone: The Collapse and Revival of American community’. In his book, Putnam identifies different forms of social capital including Bonding, Bridging and Linking. He claims that bonding refers to the bonds and relationships between group members such as family or friends that help develop identities and security. Bridging is the resource that helps individuals build further relationships outside of the family to a wider range of people. Linking social capital helps people connect with others of different power or authority. Today it is hard to form one straightforward definition of Social Capital but it is commonly understood as shared values, links, norms that allow groups of people to form trusting relationships in order to work together to achieve coming goals (Evans 2000). Putnam (2000) states that these factors are essential for people to improve their quality of life. A strong source of social capital in communities leads to stronger trusting relationships which then results in lower crime rates and anti-social behaviour, better health outcomes and lower rates of poverty (Halpern 2010).

In addition, community is important in people’s lives as it can play a role in poverty reduction. Poverty can be caused by unemployment, low income, lack of education, unpredictable income and benefit cuts but it can also be the result of a power imbalance. According to Arradon and Wyler from the Community Trust Association (2008), community based enterprises in deprived areas can help people have a say, provide people with access to resources and improve skills and confidence. There is evidence to show that there is a relationship between Social capital and poverty. Researchers found that strong community relationships and trust helps develop support networks within communities making it much easier for individuals to ask community members for help and support (World Bank 2001). Relationship issues with family and friends has been connected to poverty. In 2017, relationship issues were reported by a quarter of all destitute households over the past year (JRF, 2018). Putnam states that a significant factor in the decline of social capital is the shifting of family structures. ‘The most fundamental form of social capital is the family and the massive evidence of the loosening bonds within the family (both extended and nuclear) is well known.’ (1995:73). From this it is clear that being a member of a community enables individuals to have a strong source of social capital and therefore allows people to ask for support in times of need.

  Furthermore, being a member of a community brings a sense of belonging and identity which is an important aspect of people’s well-being and quality of life (Haggerty & Patusky 1995). People are unique and their identities are formed in a number of ways but it is our relationship with others and our membership of particular groups that contribute towards constructing our identity (Tajfel 1970). For example, if you grew up in Glasgow, you were either a Rangers or Celtic fan and identified yourself with that particular group and participated in group norms or activities that were unique to this group. The relationship between identity and community is contained in the definition of communities as ‘networks of interpersonal ties that provide sociability, support, information, a send of belonging and social identity (Wellman 2001:18). As social creatures, we need to belong and feel social and positive connections with others whether this is with friends, family or intimate relationships (Baumeister & Leary 1995). Maslow (1954) proposed that one of our fundamental needs is to feel a sense of belonging. We are happier and content if we feel as though we belong to a particular group. Therefore, in order to create an empowered and effective community, members must feel that they belong. Those that feel a sense of belonging will be willing to participate in local activities, help those in their neighbourhood and confront any inappropriate behaviour that may affect the community (Wedlock 2006).

Although being a part of a community has many benefits to an individual’s life, the concept of community can also encompass negative connotations. Cohen (1985) argues that community involves members of a group that share something in common with each other and this similarity separates them from members of other groups. Consequently, this creates a ‘boundary’ between those who belong to that group and those who do not belong resulting in social exclusion and stigma e.g. ethnicity, religion. In addition, communities can contain individuals who feel pressure to be a part of a certain group or community. For example, Sobel (2002:146) states ‘An individual may be better off joining a group than staying out and being the target of attacks from the group but the group may encourage risky or destructive behaviour of its members, so that all group members would be better off if the group did not exist.’

Whether the meaning of community is negative or positive, it is critical that social workers take community into consideration. It is necessary to understand the communities they are working with how the individuals identify themselves within these communities. It is argued that there has been a great decline in communities over the years and if communities existed there would be less need for social work intervention. Thus, the aim of creating a sustainable and resilient community has become a central aspect of social work practice as a preventative action (Teater & Baldwin 2012). As social workers regularly work with those that are socially excluded they should work towards creating diverse communities that are welcoming to new members, that support one another regardless of their differences and that challenge labels and stigma. Stepney and Popple (2008) propose that community social work is associated with social justice, self-help, voluntarism, providing assessable services and uses a variety of interventions to meet needs of individuals. Community social work essentially recognises that people are a part of their social environment and focuses on the whole needs of a community and on the empowerment of its individual members (Teater & Baldwin 2012). Therefore, community social work is grounded in the Ecological model which emphasises the significance of an individual’s social and physical interactions with the world around them (Germain 1973). It emphasises working with individuals rather than working for them and includes them in decisions about their own life. It perceives issues and problems people face such as poverty, hunger, illness, crime and violence as social not individual and seeks to deal with the root cause of these (Turbett 2014). This may include attempting to address different policies or encouraging groups of people to get involved to make changes that affect them.

Anti-Oppressive practice is a fundamental component in community social work. Dominelli (2002) defines oppression as, ‘relations that divide people into dominant or superior groups and subordinate and inferior groups…’ (2002:8). It attempts to acknowledge and fight the abuse of power that can result in actions of racism, ageism, sexism, classism, and ableism. Community social work pays attention to the individual within their environment and takes an empowerment approach to tackle existing inequalities. Gutierrez, Maye, and DeLois (1995: 249) stated: ‘Empowerment is the process of increasing personal, interpersonal or political power so that individuals, families, and communities can take action to improve their situations’. It is understood that when people feel empowered they feel involved and that they have power and control over what happens to them (DuBois & Miley 2011). Another foundation of anti-oppressive practice in social work may include developing balanced relationships between professionals and community members where no hierarchy exists. This is critical in order to form trusting relationships between individuals and social workers and to enhance the working with people rather than for people perspective (Beresford, Croft & Adhead 2008).

There are several approaches community social workers commonly use which include community development (bottom-up), social planning (top-down) and social action (inside-out) but they tend be used simultaneously. Community development involves community members working together to tackle certain shared issues and problems. Social planning is the process of assessments to develop policies and programs for the community in order to fill any service gaps. Social action is the focus of advocacy work with vulnerable groups to promote social justice (Rothman 2001).

The Serenity Café is an excellent example of what ‘community social work’ is and how it can completely change people’s lives. The Serenity Café is the first café in Scotland to offer a safe alcohol and drug free space location where those experiencing addiction can work together to support their recovery. The café offers 1:1 trained recovery support and also a variety of activities that people can get involved in including arts and crafts, yoga, walking and gardening. The café is made up of paid employees, volunteers and service users all contributing to the successful running of the café (Comas, 2018). Anti-oppressive practice is established at Serenity. The social worker has a statutory responsibility for the cafe but ensures there is a minimal hierarchical structure in an effort to refrain from an ‘us’ and ‘them’ perspective. This is noticeably demonstrated as everyone is willing to share roles and responsibilities to help one another which further enhances the idea of community. The idea of working with people is very apparent in the café. Those who are members are there because they chose to do so. They choose when they want to accept help, they choose what help they would like, what activities they want to be involved in, and how they recover at their own pace. They can also offer help to other members by using their own experiences of recovery and simultaneously aiding their own recovery. Furthermore, members of the café are encouraged and given the opportunity to move into paid employment within the café which helps confidence, self-worth and provides people with a feeling of purpose. This also assists as a stepping stone and enables people who are recovering from addiction to ease themselves back into the real world. The café appears to have a strong sense of Social Capital. Members have trusting relationships with each other and support one another in order to achieve their mutual aim which is to strengthen their recovery. The sense of belonging and identity is also felt throughout the café. Everyone knows one another and it has an exceptional family atmosphere where people can be themselves and come and go as they please. Finally, the café attempts to tackle the issue of stigma that surrounds substance misuse by welcoming non-members into the café and informing people of the work that they carry out. (Personal contact, Serenity Café, 2018). It is clear from the example of Serenity Café that community support is an important resource for sustaining recovery.

Community social work is evidently an important aspect of social work services and there is an abundance of case studies which show how these services can improve the lives of people living in Scotland. For example, Citadel Family Project, Unaccompanied Asylum seeking Young people, Be Active Life Long, East Lothian Champions board, COPE Scotland and Centrestage (Iriss, 2018). Nevertheless, community social work does not exist without its challenges. Firstly, community social work tends to fall within the voluntary sector and these organisations heavily rely on donations and fundraising. According to the National Survey of Charities and Social Enterprise (2010) charity organisations that support vulnerable people say that their most important source of income comes from state funding. However, only 22% of charities in the UK actually receive state funding. This often means that voluntary organisations find themselves undertaking more work than they have the funds for. This is apparent at Serenity café as it is primarily funded by the Edinburgh Alcohol and Drug Partnership but severely relies on charity donations and fundraising efforts in order to run successfully. The café recognises that they help and support people in ways that exceeds their funding distributions. Secondly, in a systematic review, Ford and Lynch (2013) also establish that community social workers face challenges such as organisational pressures, exhaustion and providing care that is not necessary within their job role. These challenges are also experienced by those working at the Serenity Café. The social worker in charge describes that her work goes far beyond the amount of funding they receive. For example, she states that she supports individuals by helping them with their benefits, attending benefit interviews and even court cases (Personal contact, Serenity Café, 2018). As well as causing funding difficulties this also adds extra stress and workload to an already exhausted social worker which can result in burnout (Mcfadden, 2015).

In conclusion, it is clear that community social work is a vital approach in social work services. Being a member of a community can improve the quality of people’s lives in a number of ways. From creating social capital and trusting relationships, giving people a sense of identity, a feeling of belonging, reducing poverty and generally improving the health and well-being of individuals. Community social work aims to use anti oppressive practice to empower those in the community and give them power to change the course of their lives. The serenity café is an excellent example of successful community social work that shows how important community recourse is in supporting people and sustaining recovery. Although community social work continues to face funding challenges and workers are experiencing burn out and exhaustion, it is argued that it is a fundamental approach which challenges inequality, promotes people’s rights and social justice in order to improve the lives of individuals.

References

• Baldwin, M. and Teater, B., 2012. Social work in the community: Making a difference. Policy Press.
• Bell, C. and Newby, H., 1971. Community studies: An introduction to the sociology of the local community (No. 5). Allen and Unwin.
• Bellah, R.N., Madsen, R., Sullivan, W.M., Swidler, A. and Tipton, S.M., 1985. Habits of the heart: Individualism and commitment in American life (p. 1985). Berkeley: University of California Press.
• Beresford, P., Croft, S. and Adshead, L., 2007. ‘We don’t see her as a social worker’: A service user case study of the importance of the social worker’s relationship and humanity. British Journal of Social Work, 38(7), pp.1388-1407.
• Bourdieu, P., 1983. The field of cultural production, or: The economic world reversed. Poetics, 12(4-5), pp.311-356.
• Cohen, A.P., 1985. Symbolism and social change: matters of life and death in Whalsay, Shetland. Man, pp.307-324.
• Coleman, J.S., 1988. Social capital in the creation of human capital. American journal of sociology, 94, pp.S95-S120.
• Dominelli, L. and Campling, J., 2002. Anti oppressive social work theory and practice. Macmillan International Higher Education.
• Durkheim, E., 1951. Suicide. Translated by JA Spaulding and G. Simpson. Gencoe, IL: Free Press (originally published 1897).
• Evans, M. and Lawson, C., 2000. The Contribution of Social Capital in the Social Economy to Local Economic Development in Western Europe. Conscise Project Reports (www. conscise. mdx. ac. uk).
• Forde, C. and Lynch, D., 2013. Critical practice for challenging times: social workers’ engagement with community work. The British Journal of Social Work, 44(8), pp.2078-2094.
• Germain, C.B., 1973. An ecological perspective in casework practice. Social Casework, 54(6), pp.323-330.
• Giddens, A., 1991. Modernity and self-identity: Self and society in the late modern age. Stanford university press.
• Gutierrez, L., Maye, G. L., & DeLois., K. 1995 The organizational context of empowerment practice: Implications for social work administration. Social Work, 40, 249–258.
• Hagerty, B.M. and Patusky, K., 1995. Developing a measure of sense of belonging. Nursing research.
• Halpern, D., 2010. The hidden wealth of nations. Polity.
• Hanifan, L.J., 1916. The rural school community center. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 67(1), pp.130-138.
• Leary, M.R. and Baumeister, R.F., 2017. The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. In Interpersonal Development (pp. 57-89). Routledge
• JRF. 2018. Destitution in the UK 2018. [online] Available at: https://www.jrf.org.uk/report/destitution-uk-2018 [Accessed 4 Oct. 2018].
• Lee, D. and Newby, H., 2005. The problem of sociology. London: Taylor & Francis e-Library.
• Lyon, F., Teasdale, S. and Baldock, R., 2010. Approaches to measuring the scale of the social enterprise sector in the UK.
• McFadden, P., 2015. Measuring burnout among UK social workers: A Community Care study.
• Maslow, A., and Murphy, G., 1954. Motivation and personality. New York: Harper & Brothers.
• Mattessich, P., and Monsey, M., 2004. Community Building: What Makes It Work: Wilder Foundation.
• Popple, K. and Stepney, P., 2008. Social work and the community: A critical context for practice. Macmillan International Higher Education.
• Putnam, R.D., 2000. Bowling alone: America’s declining social capital. In Culture and politics (pp. 223-234). Palgrave Macmillan, New York.
• Silk, J., 1999. The dynamics of community, place, and identity.
• Sobel, J., 2002. Can we trust social capital?. Journal of economic literature, 40(1), pp.139-154.
• Tajfel, H., 1970. Experiments in intergroup discrimination. Scientific American, 223(5), pp.96-103.
• Teasdale, S., 2010. How can social enterprise address disadvantage? Evidence from an inner city community. Journal of Nonprofit & Public Sector Marketing, 22(2), pp.89-107.
• Theserenitycafe.com. (2018). The Serenity Cafe – Toms River NJ. [online] Available at: http://www.theserenitycafe.com/ [Accessed 17 Oct. 2018].
• Tönnies, F., 1940. Fundamental concepts of sociology:(Gemeinschaft und Gesellschaft). American Book Company.
• Turbett, C., 2014. Doing radical social work. Macmillan International Higher Education.
• Wedlock, E., 2006. Crime and cohesive communities. London: Home Office.
• Wellman, B., 2001. Physical place and cyberplace: The rise of personalized networking. International journal of urban and regional research, 25(2), pp.227-252.
• World Bank, 2001. World development report 2002: building institutions for markets. World Bank Group.