The story of community organization in the United Kingdom is a fascinating journey through changing ideas about poverty, professional practice, and the power of collective action. From the late 19th century to the present day, the approach to community work has evolved through distinct phases, each shaped by the social and political context of its time. Understanding this evolution helps us appreciate not only how community work developed as a profession but also how communities themselves have sought to address the challenges facing their members.
Table of Contents
First phase (1880-1920): A method of social work
During its initial phase, community work in the UK was primarily viewed as a method of social work, focused on helping individuals improve their social adjustment. This period saw the emergence of two influential movements that would shape community organization for decades to come.
The Charity Organization Society (COS), established in 1869, represented a significant shift toward scientific approaches to poverty. The COS emphasized individual casework and sought to coordinate the efforts of various charitable organizations to avoid duplication and ensure that help reached those who truly needed it. This organization is widely recognized as the pioneering force behind social work as a professional occupation.
Alongside the COS, the Settlement House Movement emerged in the 1880s as another crucial development. Toynbee Hall, founded in 1884 in Bethnal Green, became the first university-sponsored settlement in Britain. These settlement houses created integrated communities where educated middle-class volunteers lived and worked alongside residents of impoverished neighborhoods, offering educational programs, social services, and recreational activities. The movement emphasized not just charity but also social reform and the importance of understanding the conditions in which people lived.
During this phase, community organization served as a major coordinator for voluntary agencies, helping to bring order to the often chaotic landscape of charitable work. The focus remained primarily on individual and family-level interventions, though the seeds of broader community action were being planted.
Second phase (1920-1950): Association with urban development
The period between 1920 and 1950 marked a significant transition as community organization became closely associated with central and state government programs for urban development. This shift reflected broader changes in how society understood and addressed social problems.
The most important development during this phase was the emergence of the community association movement. The National Council of Social Service, founded in 1919, played a key role in promoting community associations across the country. These associations aimed to create networks of neighborhood organizations that could address local needs while fostering civic participation and democratic engagement.
Community centers and associations became focal points for social activity, offering everything from educational programs to recreational facilities. The movement drew inspiration from thinkers like Mary Parker Follett, who emphasized the importance of group life and democratic participation in strengthening communities. This period saw community work begin to move beyond purely charitable concerns toward a more integrated approach that involved government planning and development.
The Housing Acts of the 1920s and 1930s also influenced this phase, as voluntary housing societies emerged to address slum conditions in urban areas. These organizations worked alongside municipal efforts to improve living conditions, demonstrating a growing partnership between voluntary action and state intervention.
Third phase (1950 onwards): Professional development and critique
The third phase emerged as a reaction to the neighborhood-focused approach of the previous era and marked a period of significant professional development for social work. This phase was characterized by critical analysis and a search for distinct professional identity among social workers.
Community work practice in the UK became influenced by theory from North America, particularly the work of Murray Ross. His 1955 definition of community organization as a process through which communities identify needs, develop confidence, find resources, and take action became highly influential. This period saw community work begin to emerge as a distinct occupation with a strong educational component.
Social work educators and planners during this time analyzed the shortcomings of existing systems and sought to develop more effective approaches. The Younghusband Report of 1959 identified community organization as a key component of social work, helping to establish it as a recognized professional practice. Universities began to develop specialized training programs, and the theoretical foundations of community work became more sophisticated.
This phase also saw community workers grappling with questions about their role and identity. Were they primarily service coordinators, community educators, or agents of social change? These debates would intensify in the following phase as community work took a more radical turn.
Fourth phase (recent): Community action and radical movements
The most recent phase has been marked by significant community action that fundamentally questioned the relationship between community work and traditional social work. This period introduced conflictual strategies and challenged the professional model that had been developing.
The Community Development Projects (CDPs) of the 1970s represent a defining moment in this radical phase. Established by the Home Office in 1969, these twelve experimental projects across Britain were initially designed to address poverty through better coordination of services and community self-help. However, many CDP teams developed radical critiques of government policy, arguing that poverty was not caused by individual or community failings but by structural economic inequality.
The radical CDPs challenged the assumption that local problems required only local solutions. Their reports, such as “Gilding the Ghetto” and “The Costs of Industrial Change,” argued that the difficulties faced by poor communities were symptoms of broader economic restructuring, deindustrialization, and class inequality. This analysis led them to support community organizing efforts that connected local struggles to wider movements for social and economic justice.
This phase saw the association between social workers and communities become deprofessionalized in important ways. Community action movements of the late 1960s and 1970s emphasized grassroots organizing, tenant associations, welfare rights groups, and direct challenges to authority. The role of the community worker shifted from neutral coordinator to advocate and, in some cases, to activist working alongside communities in conflicts with local and national government.
While the radical CDP experiment ended in the late 1970s, its influence persisted. The conflictual strategies it introduced became part of the repertoire of community work, alongside more traditional approaches focused on service coordination and community development. This phase demonstrated that community organization could be a vehicle for challenging power structures and advocating for fundamental social change, not simply managing poverty more efficiently.
What do you think? How can community workers today balance the need for professional expertise with the goal of empowering communities to lead their own struggles? In what ways might the structural analysis of poverty developed by the radical CDPs remain relevant to understanding community challenges in the 21st century?
References
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_organization
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_social_work
- https://infed.org/dir/welcome/what-is-community-work/
- https://infed.org/dir/welcome/community-organization/
- https://academic.oup.com/cdj/article/52/2/226/3076994
- https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13604813.2024.2427437
Leave a Reply