Practice Report: When Life Gives you Apricots

by JOHN STANSFIELD

Click here to read the pdf

The International Association for Community Development (IACD) practice exchange in India this March gave me a whole new take on the saying “when life gives you lemons, make lemonade”, and a good lesson in the ways of an enterprising community to boot! Twenty of us traveled by train and minibus from Delhi as part of a two week traveling community development (CD) learning community. We were hosted by the Pan Himalayan Grassroots Development Foundation (Grassroots) – the lifework of visionary IACD vice president Anita Paul and her ever smiling husband Kalyan.

Grassroots is one of many inspiring community initiatives we visited and is justifiably famous for its integrated environmental and economic work. As Kalyan notes, “You cannot protect a forest if the people have no cooking fuel.” The organisation’s brilliant Sustainable Energy projects have reduced pollution, improved sanitation and soil fertility, improved health through eliminating smoky cooking fires and saved the forests and the labour of harvesting firewood by utilising household-scale biogas plants. The plants are installed and maintained by villagers and plants put in 25 years ago are still performing well.

Another welcome initiative in the chilly climate was the women’s self-help group Mahlia Umang Samiti, famous for their knitted woollens and preserves. Today over 2500 rural women are involved with Umang in enterprises including beekeeping, spice harvesting and pickle-making alongside the woollens and jams. The group is now an independent producer company and has its own shop.

For sheer enterprise in the face of adversity, however, I was most impressed and encouraged by the story of the humble Wild Himalayan Apricot and what a little ingenuity helped it achieve.
The late Oona Sharma, visionary co-founder of non-profit organisation Aarohi, will be smiling somewhere in the vast Himalayan sky, looking down on the enterprising and resourceful followers who have carried on her brilliant community development work amongst mountain communities.

Life in the mountains is hard. The inspiring and stunning scenery belies an existence of harsh conditions and frugal subsistence. The mountain villagers in Satoli, Uttarakhand, rely on a coarse apricots as a cash crop from which they make jam. When a freak hail storm knocked every single green apricot from the trees despair, although understandable, was simply not an option.

The resourceful Aarohi leadership that built a remarkable hospital and boasts an immunisation rate of 99% in some of the most inaccessible country in the world, rose to the challenge. From the devastating hailstorm a new social enterprise was born: Apricots kernels are dried and then ground and cold-pressed to produce a very high value oil used as the basis for a range of cosmetics which we saw marketed across the region. There is even an online shop.

The villagers now have a factory and ever expanding product list, a distribution network and an insulating safety net to protect the apricots from the next hailstorm. The value of the crop is now almost three times what it was before the hailstorm. Many villagers are now sustainably employed and contributing to their community health centre and school and are able to build a better life for their families and communities – thanks to that freak hailstorm.

Beyond the apricot initiative, the health centre and outreach work of Aarohi were ably explained to us by the affable Dr Paneet, a retired Indian Army surgeon who regaled us with his stories of resourcefully staffing the hospital with specialist doctors:

“What I do is wait till it is insufferably hot in Dehli and then I phone my old colleagues and complain about how cold it is here. When they have accepted my invitation for a visit I tell them how sad it is for a friend in the village who could really use a specialist like my friend. By the time the visiting doctor arrives there are enough patients for several days of clinic. It is an old ruse and my friends humour me and the villagers get the finest medical services.”

As further noted in its impressive annual report, Aorahi’s work is indeed extensive:

“Our 24-year journey has been one of trials and tribulations, and full of excitement and growth. Today, the organisation employs 112 full-time staff, and is supported by 371 members from all over the world. We actively operate in 141 villages, working with some 65,606 people. Village Satoli, our headquarters, has transformed into a buzzing node of positive grassroots action.”

The integration of community enterprise with healthcare, education, improved livelihoods and environmental protection were strong features of all the CD organisations we visited on the exchange, where we saw sustainable development so clearly expressed we might have been looking at case studies for the UN Goals for sustainable development.

This is a companion piece. Click here to read the first apricot report by John Stansfield.

---

 

Save

Community Development In Aotearoa New Zealand: A Historical Journey

 by JENNY AIMERS and PETER WALKER

Click here to read the pdf

ABSTRACT
In this article we seek to describe the key periods and influences of community development practice in Aotearoa New Zealand. Our historical journey gives particular consideration to the specific impacts the government’s neoliberal policies have had on community development in this country. This work highlights the hostile policy environment that has left community development isolated and unsupported. We also draw on the experience of community development workers from our recent research and reflect on the current position of community development practice in this country and the challenges for its future.

INTRODUCTION
In this paper we describe the key periods of, and influences on, community development practice by building on the historical timeline that was initially developed by Church (2010); incorporating historical work by Chile (2006). We continue the process of storying the practice of community development in Aotearoa New Zealand until 2016. This material is drawn from empirical research undertaken for Aimers & Walker’s 2013 book Community Development: Insights for Practice in Aotearoa New Zealand, combined with a wider literature search. Our historical journey gives particular consideration to the impacts that the government’s neoliberal policies have had on community development. It is our intent in this paper to provide a historical context for current and future practitioners from which they can gain perspective of their own practice. We also consider the commonalities within practice across time, styles and philosophical standpoints. We also hope to stimulate other writers to further research these historical periods in order to offer a more in-depth and critical perspective.

THE HISTORY OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT IN AOTEAROA NEW ZEALAND
The special character of community development practice in Aotearoa New Zealand was developed from two distinct cultural origins. Firstly, pre-colonisation, where Māori had a model of society that was communal, holistic and held a sacred relationship with the natural world. Secondly, as the process of colonisation developed in Aotearoa New Zealand during the 1800s, the new immigrants, mainly from the UK, brought with them the charitable models of care and support for the poor and vulnerable within communities that they were familiar with at home. As a result, new groups were established for these purposes, typically under the auspices of the church (Else, 1973; Chile, 2006).

From these two distinct cultural origins, community development practice has been continually influenced by political and social contexts. We outline these various periods and influences briefly, exploring each one to highlight the varied political and social situations that have impacted on community development practice in this country.

Figure 1 outlines these influences and periods since the 1930s. Note that these influences are highly generalised and represent dominant practices of the time, and do not preclude aspects existing together in subsequent or even preceding phases.

While our focus for this article is on the period from 1980 to the present, we provide a longer historical view, from the 1930s onwards, to give context to this discussion. Despite limited formal professional support for community development in Aotearoa New Zealand, this historical view highlights that there are multiple pathways to development. Applying a broad-brush approach, we outline a progression that begins in the 1930s, becomes more formalised with government programmes in the 1950s, is influenced by consciousness-raising movements in the 1960s and 1970s, moving through the overtly neoliberal political era in the 1980s and its various phases throughout the 1990s and 2000s. These periods encompass capacity building, strengths and community-led approaches and come full circle to the (very different) personal consciousness-raising focus.

COMMUNITY REBUILDING: 1930s-1940s
With the emergence of the welfare state in Aotearoa New Zealand in the 1930s and the introduction of a social democratic polity (Sinclair, 1990), the government focused on improving the physical welfare of individuals. This was undertaken through the provisions of the Physical Welfare & Recreation Act of 1937, which sought to make community recreation more available to prepare healthy young people for the future (including, ironically, the prospect of war), as well as to promote civil bonds. By the late 1940s, disruption and shortages caused by World War Two led to a focus on providing support services and government subsidies. Various Acts of parliament contributed to significant building of community facilities at this time, including the Māori Social and Economic Advancement Act in 1945 and the Department of Internal Affairs War Memorial Hall pound-for-pound subsidy in 1949, that resulted in an extensive network of war memorial community halls and the redevelopment of marae throughout the country (Church, 1990; Stothart 1980, Māori Affairs Department, 1952).

YOUTH NEEDS: 1950s-1960s
After World War Two, urban drift, the baby boom and increasing economic prosperity led to the notion of working to empower groups of people, rather than bestowing charity. New social challenges gave birth to what was termed ‘counter-culture’ movements (Johns, 1993). Rapid urbanisation, post World War Two, particularly for indigenous Māori and immigrants from Pacific Island nations, also created social needs related to housing, health and cultural alienation (Chile, 2006). There was a desire to utilise the increased leisure time of the growing youth population, which resulted in a proliferation of youth and leisure clubs throughout the country (Church, 1990).

RIGHTS: 1960s-1970s
Community development work became recognised as a defined social practice during the 1960s and 1970s. Much of this early community development work was rights-based, responding to the social grassroots movements such as feminism, the Māori renaissance, Pacific peoples’ diaspora and developing youth cultures. Such rights-based work was often undertaken by volunteers rather than paid workers (Vanderpyl, 2004).

The various forms of feminism were hugely significant for women from all types of communities: from solo mothers; Māori women; immigrant women, particularly those originating from the Pacific; through to rural women. Beginning with ‘for women by women’ groups that grew out of the second wave of feminism in the 1970s, consciousness raising and political activity grew into service provision for women run by women in the 1980s and 1990s (Vanderpyl, 2004).

Neighbourhood work also appeared during the 1970s and 1980s as territorial local authorities (TLA) were encouraged to recognise the diversity of their communities and develop community development units under the Local Government Act 1974 (Aimers & Walker, 2013).

STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS: 1980s-1990s
Those working in community development in the late 1970s-1980s may argue that this was a halcyon period for the practice as the rights of social and cultural groupings continued to be debated, and a period of rising inflation, high unemployment and subsequent cuts to state welfare gave fire to the movement. Workers were stimulated by visiting experts; Father Philippe Fanchette appeared during the 1980s and was one of the first to have widespread impact across the county. He was facilitated by John Curnow, a Catholic priest of the Christchurch diocese, who toured Father Fanchette’s workshops around Aotearoa New Zealand. These structural analysis workshops were based on the work of Paolo Freire (1970) and focused on identifying power structures and strategising to reposition power. Structural analysis removed the boundaries between community development agencies and those they worked with, practising a ‘personal is political’ approach. This movement dovetailed with the rights-based work of the previous period and laid a foundation to engage with the emerging issues of the ‘Māori renaissance’ and calls by Māori for te tino rangatiratanga (self-determination), and a call for the Treaty of Waitangi to be honoured as the nation’s founding document. This led to the rise of bi-culturalism as the “…relationship between the state’s founding cultures…” (Durie, 2005). Bi-culturalism in Aotearoa New Zealand has as its basis Te Tiriti o Waitangi /The Treaty of Waitangi, signed in 1840 between the British Crown and Māori. For those working in the wider community this had implications for how they engage with Māori communities, with particular emphasis on understanding the effects of colonisation and how to conduct appropriate consultation on issues that might concern Māori. Likewise, there followed a growing discourse that Māori matters were a subject that required the engagement of Māori researchers.

As in many other countries, the period since the 1980s has been strongly influenced by neoliberal policies that had an unprecedented effect on the community and voluntary sector in Aotearoa New Zealand (Larner & Craig, 2005). With the election of the fourth Labour Government in 1984, Aotearoa New Zealand entered into the neoliberal phase, with the adoption of market-driven policies and the rolling back of the welfare state (Kelsey, 1995). These neoliberal policies effectively ignored community development activities; the government focus towards a social development agenda simply overlooked the role of community development when it did not fit seamlessly into the social development framework.

Larner & Craig (2005) describe the neoliberal period in Aotearoa New Zealand as having three phases: the first phase being the withdrawal of the state from economic production; the second phase being the extension of marketisation and the introduction of neoconservative social policy; and the third phase, a local variant of Tony Blair’s ‘Third Way’ partnership model that saw the introduction of a state-driven partnering ethos by the Labour Government in 1999. The first two phases saw a gradual shift away from grant funding to contracting for services which later led to a further shift to funding for outcomes. This shift to embrace contracting had a great impact on the community and voluntary sector as it established a competition for funding to provide decentralised social services. The policy focus at this time was for social development, and community development all but disappeared from policy as a result. The ‘social development approach’ was designed by the Ministry of Social Development and provided a blueprint for state sector agencies and voluntary agencies to enter into contracting arrangements. Larner (2004, p. 7) defines this approach as a process that brings together the concepts of ‘human capital’ with ‘social capital’ thereby linking communities, families/whanau and individuals to broader economic and social processes. Quoting the New Zealand Prime Minister, Helen Clark, Larner explains that the overall aim of “the social development approach is to ‘reconcile social justice with an energetic and competitive economy’.” This approach led to a standardisation of practice for those community agencies seeking such funded relationships (Harrington, 2005). This shift resulted in resistance and dissatisfaction from the community and voluntary sector to the increasing compliance costs coupled with competitive funding models (Cribb, 2005; Larner & Craig, 2005; Shannon & Walker, 2006).

INCLUSION: 1990s-2000s
The adoption of the social capital rhetoric to bring about social inclusion dominated community development discussion for a number of years from 1990 onwards and was, in part, the basis for the partnering ethos introduced with the adoption of ‘third way-style’ policies by the Labour Government in 1999.

The third phase of neoliberalism focused on partnering, which appeared to align with a communitarian outlook. While the government’s third sector partnering strategy has been described as ‘neo-communitarianism’ this strategy ignored the obvious power imbalance between the two partners. Larner and Butler (2005) observed that community-based yet state-legitimised ‘strategic brokers’ were responsible for the facilitation of the state-community collaboration, thereby blurring the boundaries and distinctions between the community and voluntary sector, and the state.

The third phase of neoliberalism was also influenced by Robert Putnam’s 1995 work linking voluntary association with economic sustainability. This led to a widespread obsession with developing and measuring social capital, particularly at a local government level. This desire was reinforced within the Local Government Act 2002 that required Territorial Local Authorities (TLAs) to promote social, economic, cultural and environmental wellbeing of communities within the development of a ‘long term council community plan’ (Aimers, 2005). As a result of this, the TLAs felt they needed to have a greater awareness of local conditions and issues. This resulted in the development of social indicators that were measured as part of the Quality of Life project, a biennial report published by the largest TLAs collaboratively (Quality of Life Project, 2014). Community development practice and community advisory teams were not universal and had only ever been located in the larger TLAs. The TLAs’ statutory role was vague, “…promoting the social, cultural, environmental and economic well-being of their communities” (Local Government NZ, 2008). TLAs took their lead from central government, focusing on partnering with community groups (Aimers, 2005). Thereby, the TLAs tended to focus on supporting community networks, championing the need for central government resources to their locality, providing small grants to community and sports groups, and supporting central government initiatives to improve community/state relationships, such as Safer Community Councils (to reduce localised crime), Strengthening Families (to better co-ordinate local delivery of family support services) and Road Safety Co-ordination at a local level.

STRENGTHS: EARLY 2000s
These influences of inclusion were followed by a strengths-based approach that focused on localised projects that at times took precedence over structural issues in order to be achievable within defined time frames (Aimers, 2005). This approach was promoted by the Department of Labour’s Community Employment Group who introduced experts in Asset Based Community Development to small towns and rural communities to accompany their Bootstraps programme, which aimed to revitalise depressed or isolated communities. They worked mainly through local authorities to promote Asset Based Community Development utilising a process of mapping community assets that engaged with communities via a stakeholder perspective to identify community projects. In addition, the holistic Global Management Approach (GMA) to community development was promulgated through the Community Employment Group (Aimers & Walker, 2013).

Putman’s version of social capital continued to be influential in this period; defined as social networks, social cohesion and connectedness. For community development practice this segued into a desire by government agencies to build ‘community capacity’ through the development of community networks and voluntary associations, in order to prevent social exclusion (Eketone & Shannon, 2006). The development of social capital to bring about social inclusion dominated community development practice well into the early 2000s. While the social capital rhetoric was attractive to many, Putnam’s version failed to recognise the overt power/political focus of Bourdieu (1986) who viewed capital in all its senses (economic, social and cultural) as a power resource for class conflict. The adoption of Putnam’s form of social capital by local authorities and government agencies conveniently suppressed attention to inequality, conflict and the role of power (Eketone & Shannon, 2006).

Another government focus during this phase was ‘capacity building’, which entailed up-skilling the community and voluntary sector to compete for the delivery of social services. In transferring the provision of social services from the state to the community and voluntary sector, the government wished to ensure high-quality services reflecting the same professional values and accountabilities as the government (Aimers & Walker, 2008; Tennant, O’Brien & Sanders, 2008). Craig and Porter (2006) describe the government policy of the time as “… a strange new hybrid…partnership and competitive contracts, inclusion and sharp discipline, free markets and community…(creating) impossible transaction costs and slippery multilevel accountabilities” (p. 219).

Despite this interest in partnership and community capacity, government support for community development declined during this phase (Aimers & Walker, 2008). Even the terms ‘community development’ or ‘community work’ were subverted, to cover a wide range of activities from non-custodial correctional sentences to beneficiary work schemes. The Community Advisory section of the Department of Internal Affairs, the government department charged with supporting community development, re-focused their Community Development Resource Kit (2003) which subsequently became the Community Resource Kit (2006). Not only was the word development dropped from the title but the community development section was also deleted.

In addition, funding schemes that once supported community development projects were reviewed, resulting in restructuring and refocusing of priorities. One of the most notable casualties of this process was the disestablishment, in 2004, of the Community Employment Group (CEG), which not only meant the loss of funding but also the loss of a dedicated group of advisory staff who worked with communities. The Department of Internal Affairs community-managed funding scheme, the Community Organisations Grants Scheme, that previously had the freedom to fund local priorities along with a unique process for community accountability, was streamlined and standardised to meet government rather than local priorities (Aimers & Walker, 2008).

With no professional body or association to lobby on its behalf, community development effectively went underground – having no place in this newly professionalised sector, and becoming marginalised as a result. Any potential dissenters were occupied by partnering with government as part of the third way agenda (Jenkins, 2005; Larner & Craig, 2005). The partnering process created what Larner and Craig (2005)  termed as new governmental spaces and subjects that emerged out of “multiple and contested discourses and practices” (p. 421). They subsequently argued that the only way to resist this new environment was to act locally. While not a defined strategy, this desire to act locally was reflected in the small local projects that subsisted over the late 1990s and early 2000s with little or no government recognition or funding (Larner & Craig, 2005).

The one exception to this generally depressed state of community development was the growth of Māori social service providers, which grew from almost zero to 1000 between 1984 and 2004 (Tennant, O’Brien & Sanders, 2008).

COMMUNITY-LED/SOCIAL ENTREPRENEUR: 2005 ONWARDS
Up until the mid-2000s market driven and neoliberal government policies had had a profound effect on the relationship between the community and voluntary sector and the state, which led to a repositioning of community development so that it effectively disappeared from successive governments’ priorities for support and funding (Aimers & Walker, 2013). These policies have led to a widening gap between larger community and voluntary organisations providing government contracted social services, and those smaller independent community organisations that have not been part of this partnering process (Shannon & Walker, 2006; Tennant, O’Brien & Sanders, 2008). It is mainly with these smaller organisations that the vestiges of bottom-up community development practices that were prevalent in the 1970s and early 1980s have remained.

These sub-cultures of environmentalism, sustainability, alternative lifestyles and social entrepreneurship have, since the 1960s, been strong motivations for community development. These projects have often attracted followers on a very personal level and have been less about changing societal norms and more about creating an alternative to mainstream society.

Since the mid-2000s a new interest in sustainability and sustainable practice has grown, sometimes linked with asset-based community development. The latter has been particularly popular in rural areas and small towns, which have continued to focus on identifying and developing community strengths rather than on social deficits (Aimers & Walker, 2013).

As noted earlier, this time period highlighted the adoption of the third phase of neoliberalism around key rhetorical terms such as ‘partnership’, the legitimation of which has become a major research agenda of a social democratic and centralising government (Craig & Larner, 2002).The dominant governmental discourse during the 2000s became that of social development rather than community development. This was an attempt to counter the fragmentation of social services that had occurred as a result of the competitive contracting model (Shannon & Walker, 2006). Although community development did not disappear, for the next 10 years or so it continued without much access to central government funding or support.

However, one significant area of advancement at this time was Māori development; The movement for indigenous (Māori) development grew in parallel to non-Māori community development models by creating new perspectives based within Māori communities (Eketone, 2006; Eketone, 2013) as well as influencing the process of Pākehā engaging with Māori communities.

Māori development focuses on a decolonising and self-determining agenda that separates Māori development from other forms of community development. Māori development has its own theoretical background that reflects a uniquely Māori perspective on notions of identity and community, expressed in multiple forms. These forms include Māori community development (social justice), Iwi development (tribal-based economic development), Marae development (upholding the mana or reputation of the Marae or hapū i.e., local tribal group) and positive Māori development (political advancement and self-determination) (Eketone, 2013). Eketone highlights the complexity and pluralistic nature of tribal-based Māori communities, with their own unique histories, values and perspectives that make it difficult to ascribe a unitary explanation. Perhaps one of the key knowledges is the Māori focus on process as an outcome in itself: “If you have maintained a project where people have pulled together, had a satisfying involvement and finished with their mana intact, then that is good – the community has been strengthened” (Eketone, 2013, p. 197).

For community development as a whole, the non-profit organisation Inspiring Communities Trust, after a decade or more of being supported primarily by volunteerism, with little available funding, can be credited with bringing community development back to the attention of government. Inspiring Communities promoted a single specific method of community development, termed community-led development. While this method was first cited in the 2005 report from the Department of Internal Affairs, Investing in Community Capacity Building, it was not until the establishment of the Inspiring Communities Trust that community-led development began to gain traction. Community-led development is characterised as a place-based practice that seeks to develop local resources and strengths by nurturing a whole-of-community shared vision (Inspiring Communities, 2010). It must be noted, however, that while community-led development gained a lot of currency, it was not the only form of community development being practised in this period. One project in particular was held up to represent the spirit of community-led development in the early stages, the Victory Village project in Nelson. The Victory Village project sought to identify community aspirations that form the basis for collaboration amongst community members and various health and welfare professionals. The project addressed local problems by changing the underlying system in which a problem lies; they called this process ‘social innovation’ (Stuart, 2010). It captured significant government interests, so much so that a national Victory Village forum was held in 2011, supported by Inspiring Communities and the Government’s Families Commission.

WHERE IS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT IN 2016?
Currently the government support for community and voluntary sector grants (including community development) totals a just over $18 million per annum, compared with $300 million for the newly established Community Investment social service contracts (Harwood, 2016). Included in the former are two government-administered grant funding programmes related to community development. Crown Grants that “…support local initiatives, projects, activities and community services” (Community Matters, 2015, p. 1), covering projects including community development and Lottery Grants. The Department of Internal Affairs also offers a community advisory service to “…provide advice, information, support and resources to assist the development of resilient and prosperous communities, hapū and iwi” (Community Matters, 2015, p. 1). From the Crown funding pool, a much smaller pilot programme was established in 2011 that redirected $1.5 million of community organisation grant funding to trial a new form of funding allocation for community-led development. This funding was allocated to five community-based fund holders to run community-led development process within their communities. They were tasked to allocate this funding in response to a broad-based community visioning and planning process (Turia, 2011b). In her report to the Cabinet Social Policy Committee, the architect of this initiative, the Hon Tariana Turia, stated, “I want to see a shift of focus in my portfolio away from small grants for individual projects and/or service organisations towards a community-led development (CLD) approach which invests more directly and more strategically in communities as a whole to achieve better outcomes for those communities” (Turia, 2011a). The pilot period was initially from July 2011 to June 2015; it has since been extended with four of the original providers (one has dropped out), and funded with an additional $400,000 until June 2016 (Department of Internal Affairs, 2015).

Support for the CLD trial was provided by Department of Internal Affairs (DIA) community advisors trained in community-led development principles. Inspiring Communities (2010) argue that significant social transformation requires acting across multiple parts of a system. This approach, however, is not easy to implement and relies on developing a commitment to the overarching interests of a geographic locality, which may cut across interests of personal identity. The most recent evaluation of the pilot found that overall the outcomes were positive but that the community-led approach was demanding and at times had “…a negative effect on the enthusiasm and pace in which CLD projects are carried out” (Department of Internal Affairs, 2015, p. 6). It was also found that the multiple accountabilities to the funder and the communities created an element of top-down between the department and the communities, and groups felt constrained by the milestones. Some groups also struggled to achieve the ‘whole of community’ consensus that was required by the community-led approach, particularly those with larger more diverse populations (Department of Internal Affairs, 2013).

Continuing the desire to pursue a public-private partnership, the government has also started to explore the notion of social enterprise, with a nationwide survey to discover the nature and extent of social enterprise activity through the Department of Internal Affairs (Munro, 2012) followed by the establishment of a business-style social enterprise incubator trial. Major philanthropic funders, the Tindall and Todd Foundations, have also promoted the development of social enterprise through their joint initiative, the Ākina Foundation, which, while still very much in its infancy, focuses on activities that have a business model that can deliver social or environmental impact (Culpan, 2015).

Our empirical research of those practising community development (Aimers & Walker, 2013) found that respondents were not necessarily tied to the government viewings of community development practice. In fact only a few of our respondents had consciously chosen to do ‘community development work’ and some did not want to be labelled ‘community development workers’, but instead chose other titles such as facilitators, project workers, field officers or community workers. Many of the projects came into being as a result of dissatisfaction with government provision and consequently have existed without government support. Many respondents, irrespective of the era they practised in, spoke of government not understanding their perspective and not being willing to listen. It is not surprising therefore that all the respondents shared a belief in the importance of a communitarian process and thinking. These were influenced by myriad philosophical approaches from neo-peasantry to tourism-destination management. It was surprising, however, to find that despite these fundamental differences, the processes they developed (often in isolation) for achieving change in their respective communities were alike, irrespective of the time period or the community context. The community development tools used by our respondents can be summarised as:

• “Engaging your community by cultivating a shared vision and building trust
• Keeping things going with effective communication and facilitation
• Finding ways of getting stuff done using activities and practical projects
• Empowering and ensuring succession by cultivating new leaders”
  (Aimers & Walker, 2013, p. 173)

These processes match those outlined in a multitude of community development resources and as such reinforce what is considered to be appropriate community development practice internationally. This commonality does suggest that in general, there is something constant and enduring in the practice and considering few had sought qualifications in community development. For those who did seek qualifications there were few alternatives to choose from. It is indicative of the current position of community development in Aotearoa New Zealand that, other than a community development major in the Bachelor of Social Practice offered at Unitec Institute of Technology in Auckland, there are no stand-alone educational qualifications available for those wishing to study community development in Aotearoa New Zealand. Some community development workers we interviewed sought further education in allied fields such as social work, community recreation, health promotion and geography (Aimers & Walker, 2013). These various fields consequently provide alternative perspectives that influence the multiplicity of community development practice in Aotearoa New Zealand.

CONCLUSION
The special character of community development work in Aotearoa New Zealand has been inspired by a range of styles or practices, including neighbourhood development, structural analysis, social capital-building, strengths-based practice, asset-based community development, Māori development, sustainable development, social entrepreneurship and, most recently, community-led development. Despite a shift in government funding priorities towards social development and the needs of individuals, a commitment to some form of communitarian community development practice remains. Recently there has been an increased government interest in community development, evidenced by CLD and social enterprise projects. However, from the evaluation reports of the CLD trial it appears that communities have had difficulties in engaging with CLD practice. Our research (Aimers & Walker, 2013) found that that many community development practitioners resisted applying for government funding in order to have the freedom to practise in a manner that is appropriate to their community context, that may or may not follow the dominant community development practice mode of the moment.

Having been driven almost underground during the 1990s and early 2000s, new practitioners are now taking up the reins with limited resources and somewhat isolated from the wisdom gained by previous generations. Despite this, we found that many of the tools used in earlier times have not changed. Some styles and standpoints remain rooted to particular periods, yet community work practice in 1980 has more in common with practice in 2016 than is immediately obvious. Whether the work they undertake is to support and build localised community relationships or challenge the existing social order at a political level, the tools used are similar across time and practice. These tools can be summarised as: engaging your community by cultivating a shared vision and building trust; using communication and facilitation to keep things going; getting stuff done via some form of practical achievement; and bringing new leaders forward to ensure succession for your project.

The underground nature of communitarian practice has meant that there is little recorded history of this work. We hope that by offering this overview we can stimulate further study and in-depth analysis of the history of community development in Aotearoa New Zealand. There are many more stories still to be told, and further reflection on lessons learned, that would benefit new practitioners. In order to grow, however, community development practice in Aotearoa New Zealand needs to be viewed as a pluralist, rather than a singular way of working. For example, community development practice may have to eschew the very label community development in order to avoid the connotations with specific (historical) models of practice. While governments may still seek to define and support a particular way of working, what seems to work best is when communities resist those approaches and seek their own community-derived solutions. Many challenges remain however, including the need to educate practitioners. For those who seek community development training, there need to be appropriate educational opportunities developed that also support community-centred knowledge and an experiential base that models a wide range of practices and perspectives. In addition, to fund community development activities, government and philanthropic sectors need to create funding models with community-based accountabilities that ensure that such work is embedded within and responsive to the communities where it is located.

REFERENCES

Aimers, J. (2005). Developing community partnerships: social wellbeing and the Local Government Act 2002. Social Work Review, 17(3), pp. 34-40.

Aimers, J. & Walker, P. (2013). Community development: Insights for practice in Aotearoa New Zealand. Auckland, New Zealand: Dunmore Press.

Aimers, J. & Walker, P. (2008). Is community accountability a casualty of government partnering in New Zealand? Aotearoa New Zealand Social Work Review, 20(3), pp. 14-24.

Bourdieu, P. (1986) The forms of capital. In J. Richardson (Ed.) Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education (New York, Greenwood), pp. 241-258.

Chile, L. (2006). The historical context of community development in Aotearoa New Zealand. Community Development Journal, 41(4), pp. 407-425.

Church, A. (1990). Community Development. Monograph Series 13, Research Unit, Department of Internal Affairs. Wellington, NZ: Department of Internal Affairs.

Department of Internal Affairs. (2015). Community matters: Funding and grants. Retrieved from http://www.communitymatters.govt.nz/Funding-and-grants—All-of-our-grant-funding

Craig, G. (2005, December). Community capacity building: Definitions, scope, measurements and critiques. Paper prepared for the OECD, Prague, Czech Republic. Retrieved from http://www.iacdglobal.org/files/OECDcomcapbldg102007.pdf

Craig, D. & Larner, W. (2002). Local Partnerships and Social Governance in Aotearoa New Zealand. Strengthening Communities Through Local Partnerships Symposium. Auckland, NZ: University of Auckland.

Craig, D. & Porter, D. (2006). Development beyond neoliberalism? Governance, poverty reduction and political economy. London, UK: Routledge.

Cribb, J. (2005). Accounting for something: voluntary organisations, accountability and the implications for government funders. Social Policy Journal of New Zealand Te Puna Whakaaro, 26, November 2005. Retrieved from https://www.msd.govt.nz/documents/about-msd-and-our-work/publications-resources/journals-and-magazines/social-policy-journal/spj26/26-pages43-51.pdf on 8/07/2016.

Culpan, A. (2015). Social enterprise Aotearoa: Insights and opportunities (Research report). Retrieved from https://annetteculpan.files.wordpress.com/2015/12/social-enterprise-aotearoa-insights1.pdf

Department of Internal Affairs. (2006). The community development resource kit. Retrieved from www.community.net.nz/how-toguides/crk

Department of Internal Affairs. (2008). Ministerial briefing papers. Retrieved from http://www.beehive.govt.nz/sites/all/files/DIA_BIM.pdf

Department of Internal Affairs. (2013). Community-led development year 2 evaluation report. Wellington, NZ: Author. Retrieved from http://www.dia.govt.nz/pubforms.nsf/URL/CLD-Year-2-evaluation-report-Dec-2013.pdf/$file/CLD-Year-2-evaluation-report-Dec-2013.pdf 21/05/2013

Department of Internal Affairs. (2015). Community-led development year 3 evaluation report. Wellington, NZ: Author. Retrieved from http://www.dia.govt.nz/pubforms.nsf/URL/CLD-Year-3-evaluation-report-Final.pdf/$file/CLD-Year-3-evaluation-report-Final.pdf accessed from 8/05/2015.

Durie, M. (2005, July). The rule of law, biculturalism and multi-culturalism. Paper presented at ALTA
Conference, University of Waikato. Retrieved from http://www.lawcom.govt.nz/sites/default/files/speeches/2005/07/ALTA%20conference%20-%20July%202005%20-%20Durie. pdf 10/11/14

Eketone, A. (2013). Māori development and Māori communities. In J. Aimers & P. Walker (Eds.), Community development: insights for practice in Aotearoa New Zealand (pp. 185-199). Auckland, New Zealand: Dunmore Press

Eketone, A. (2006). Tapuwae: a vehicle for community change. Community Development Journal, 41(4), pp.467-480.

Eketone, A. & Shannon, A. (2006). Community development: Strategies for empowerment in a sustainable Aotearoa/New Zealand. In C. Freeman & M. Thompson-Fawcett (Eds.), Living together: Towards inclusive communities (pp. 207-227). Dunedin, NZ: University of Otago Press.

Else, A. (1973). Women together, a history of women’s organisations in New Zealand. Wellington, NZ: Daphne Brasell Associates Press.

Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York, US: Herder and Herder.

Harrington, P. (2005). Partnership work. Research Paper No. 17, Strengthening Communities through Local Partnerships Programme, University of Auckland.

Harwood, B. (2016, March 27). Measure results, MSD boss says. Otago Daily Times. Retrieved from  http://www.odt.co.nz/news/dunedin/377582/measure-results-msd-boss-says

Inspiring Communities. (2010). What are we learning about community-led development in Aotearoa New Zealand. Inspiring Communities. December 2010.

Jenkins, K. (2005). No way out? Incorporating and restructuring the voluntary sector within spaces  of neo-liberalism. In N. Laurie & L. Bondi (Eds.), Working the spaces of neo-liberalism (pp.216-221). Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing.

Johns, K. (1993). Community development in territorial local authorities: A profile. Wellington, NZ: Department of Internal Affairs.

Kelsey, J. (1995). The New Zealand experiment – a world model for structural adjustment? London, UK and East Haven, US: Pluto Press.

Larner, W. (2004). Neoliberalism in (regional) theory and practice: The Stronger Communities Action Fund, Research Paper No. 14, Strengthening Communities through Local Partnerships Programme, University of Auckland.

Larner, W. & Craig, D. (2005). After neoliberalism? Community activism and local partnerships in Aotearoa New Zealand. Antipode, 37, 402-424. doi: 10.1111/j.0066-4812.2005.00504.x

Local Government NZ. (2008). Role of Local Government. Local Government New Zealand. Retrieved from www.lgnz.govt.nz/lg-sector/role/ [accessed 4 May 2009]

Maori Affairs Department. (1952). The Story of the Modern Marae. Te Ao Hou 2. Spring 1952, 23-23. Retrieved from www.teaohou.natlib.govt.nz/jounrals/teaohou/issue/Maoo2TeA/ci14.html [accessed 6 July 2016]

Munro, B. (2012, November 3). Making a difference. Otago Daily Times. p. 45-47.

Putnam, R.D. (1995). Bowling alone: America’s declining social capital. Journal of Democracy, 6(1), pp. 65-78.

Quality of life project. (2014). Retrieved from http//:www.qualityoflifeproject.govt.nz

Stuart, D. (2010). Paths of victory: Victory Village (Victory Primary School and Victory Community  Health Centre) – A case study. (New Zealand Families Commission, Innovative Practice Fund Report No. 8/10). Wellington, NZ: New Zealand Government.

Shannon, P. & Walker, P. (2006). Inclusion and autonomy in state-local partnerships participation and control in a state/local partnership in Aotearoa/New Zealand. Community Development Journal, 14, pp. 506-520.

Sinclair, K. (Ed.). (1990). The Oxford illustrated history of New Zealand (second edition). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Stothart, R. (1980). The new deal in recreation and sport in J. Shallcrass R. Larkin and R. Stothart (eds) Recreation Reconsidered into the Eighties, Wellington:Auckland Regional Authority New Zealand Council for Recreation and Sport, pp. 47-54

Tennant, M., O’Brien, M., & Sanders, J. (2008). The history of the non-profit sector in New Zealand. Wellington, NZ: Office for the Community and Voluntary Sector. Retrieved from http://www.ocvs.govt.nz/documents/publications/reports/the-history-of-the-non-profit-sector-in-new-zealand.pdf

Turia, T. (2011a). Budget 2011 – new initiative to support community-led development (Press Release). Retrieved from http://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/budget-2011-new-initiative-support-community-led-development 21/05/2013

Turia, T. (2011b). Progress Implementing the Community-led Development Approach, Report to the Cabinet Social Policy Committee from the Office of the Minister for the Community and
Voluntary Sector. 31 August 2011, Retrieved from http://www.dia. govt.nz/Pubforms.nsf/ URL/Cabinet_Paper_ProgressImplementingThe Community-ledDevelopmentApproach.pdf/$file/Cabinet_Paper_Progress ImplementingTheCommunity-ledDevelopmentApproach.pdf on 19/8/ 2015).

Vanderpyl, J. (2004). Aspiring for unity and equality: Dynamics of conflict and change in the ‘by women for women’ feminist service groups, Aotearoa/New Zealand (1970-1999). (Unpublished PhD thesis). University of Auckland.

---

 

Save

Save

Positive Women: A Community Development Response to Supporting Women and Families Living with HIV/AIDS in Aotearoa New Zealand

by HELENE CONNOR, JANE BRUNING and KSENIJA NAPAN

Click here to read the pdf

ABSTRACT
This paper reflects on Positive Women’s twenty five years as a successful community development response to supporting women and families living with HIV or AIDS. The paper focuses on the community development philosophical underpinning of Positive Women that have driven the organisation since its inception in 1991. Positive Women has actively advocated for social justice, human rights, collective responsibility and respect for diversities, all central to community development.

INTRODUCTION
This paper reflects on Positive Women’s twenty-five years as a successful community development response to supporting women and families living with HIV or AIDS. It also offers an inspirational example of how blurring the lines between professional social work, community development and peer support can create transformation in people’s lives and in the communities where they live and work.

Aotearoa New Zealand has a relatively low prevalence of women living with HIV or AIDS. However, the position of women with HIV remains marginalised and many report feelings of stigma, isolation and prejudice (Bruning, 2009). In 1991, social worker and community developer Judith Ackroyd initiated the not-for-profit organisation Positive Women, in order to support women and their families living with HIV or AIDS. Judith was joined by Suzy Morrison and a small group of women from the community, who worked to build the capacity of Positive Women. In 2016, Positive Women celebrated its 25th birthday, and acknowledged the community development response that has enabled the organisation to support those women who represent the invisible face of the HIV and AIDS epidemic.

This paper focuses on the philosophical underpinning of community development that has driven the organisation since its inception in 1991. Positive Women has actively advocated for social justice, human rights, collective responsibility and respect for diversities – all central to community development. The empowerment of women living with HIV through projects such as its Destigmatisation Campaign, launched in 2008, and the 2014 campaign promoting the female condom, have been at the heart of its community and activism.

HISTORICAL OVERVIEW OF HIV/AIDS IN AOTEAROA NEW ZEALAND
Aotearoa New Zealand meets the UNAIDS/WHO (2016) criteria for a ‘low-level’ HIV and AIDS epidemic, as infection is largely confined to individuals with higher-risk behaviour and has not consistently exceeded five percent in any defined subpopulation. On this basis Aotearoa New Zealand has chosen to focus on high-risk groups and behaviours in their HIV and AIDS policies, resulting in a strong focus on men-who-have-sex-with-men (MSM) and African communities (AEG, 2009). This continued focus on high-risk groups has further marginalised and stigmatised MSM and African communities and has also isolated women who do not belong to these groups (AEG, 2009). While the heterosexual spread of HIV is relatively limited there are, however, a significant number of heterosexual people living with HIV in Aotearoa New Zealand, a factor which appears to be repeatedly ignored or treated as something of insignificance (Bruning, Connor & Napan, 2013).

Initially, the government’s response to HIV and AIDS in Aotearoa New Zealand was slow and restrained (Carter, Howden-Chapman, Park, & Scott, 1996). The first suspected case of “acute HIV infection” was diagnosed in 1983 and by 1985 a further five people had been diagnosed with AIDS. All were men who identified as men-who-have-sex-with-men (Dickson, 1998).

During the 1980s, health officials called for the establishment of an AIDS Support Network (ASN) for people living with AIDS. Volunteers were trained to provide homecare and peer counselling, together with peer education, which was available for people living with AIDS. In addition, several grassroots organisations were established. One of these was the Māori HIV prevention group, Te Roopu Tautoko (TRT), which was created in 1988 with a mandate to undertake HIV prevention work among Māori. By the late 1980s, a need for a women’s support network was identified by two social workers (Judith Ackroyd and Suzy Morrison) employed by the Community AIDS Resource Team (CART), a government funded department closely connected with the Infectious Diseases Clinic based out of Auckland Hospital. During this period there was a notable increase in the number of women being diagnosed with HIV, yet this was largely ignored and little attention was given to the unique features of HIV infection in women (Bennett, 2007). Seeing a gap in service need, CART, together with a number of women living with HIV, began the process of establishing Positive Women (Bruning, Connor & Napan, 2013).

From 1985 to year end 2015, a total of 4,392 people are reported to have been diagnosed with HIV in New Zealand. Of these, 699 are women with exposure categories as follows: 572 through heterosexual contact, 14 through intravenous drug use, 10 as a result of being blood transfusion recipients, 20 through perinatal transmission and 83 through other or unknown transmission. The majority (74%) of heterosexual people who contract HIV acquire it overseas. In contrast, 87% of men who have sex with men, who contract HIV, acquire it within Aotearoa New Zealand (AIDS Epidemiology Group, 2016).

Recording the ethnicity of people who have acquired HIV was undertaken in Aotearoa New Zealand only from 1996. Rates have been two to four times higher among Māori, Pacific and Asian women compared to European women. However, these results are based on very low numbers overall (AIDS Epidemiology Group, 2016).

The second-largest group to be diagnosed with HIV in Aotearoa New Zealand is people from a refugee background and migrants, mostly from Africa. Among this group there are 262 men and 270 women (AIDS Epidemiology Group, 2016).

THE GENESIS OF POSITIVE WOMEN INC.
Positive Women is a peer support, community development response to the needs of women and families in Aotearoa New Zealand living with HIV or AIDS. Ife and Fiske (2006) argue that community development work is explicit in its agenda of giving primacy to wisdom existing at the grassroots level, ahead of external experts. This agenda was explicit in the development of Positive Women from its inception. Women living with HIV or AIDS felt the existing service providers did not meet their needs and as a grassroots response established Positive Women, with assistance from the Community AIDS Resource Team, which worked alongside the Infectious Diseases Clinic at Auckland Hospital. Initially, a small group of women got together to provide moral support to each other and it was run on a voluntary basis.

While Positive Women was very much a grassroots response to the needs of women living with HIV or AIDS, in its early period it was partially controlled and managed by the Community AIDS Resource Team (CART). Ife and Fiske (2006) recognise this mode of community development as coming from above, where the development is instigated and controlled externally. A risk inherent in using this model is the exclusion of the people within the community development project (Ife & Fiske, 2006). In the case of Positive Women however, a human rights approach was at its core, which had a clear, comprehensive and practical framework for development. While it had the support of CART and social workers Judith Ackroyd and Suzy Morrison, the intention of Positive Women’s kaupapa was that it be locally active, and value and affirm the wisdom of women living with HIV or AIDS. Eventually, the operational management of Positive Women was handed over to the women themselves, rendering the organisation an ideal case study of community innovation (J. Bruning, personal communication, April 22, 2016). The values inherent in this kaupapa characterise a bottom up approach to community development practice (Ife & Fiske, 2006).

POSITIVE WOMEN: EXEMPLIFYING EFFECTIVE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PRACTICE
Positive Women became an incorporated society in 2000 and continued to be run on a voluntary basis. This change relied heavily on women stepping up to the role of organising meetings, events and activities, when and if they had the time, energy and good health (Bruning, 2009). Chile (2007) argues that good community development practice evolves from a community, defined as a group of people who share some experiences which bind them together. In the case of Positive Women, the common experience that bound the women together in a community was their shared diagnosis of either HIV or AIDS. Chile further argues that a clear understanding of the concept of community is critical for good community development practice at both personal and political levels. Chile outlines three principles which fulfil the needs of ‘community’ at the personal level. These three principles are clearly evident in the development of community within Positive Women.

Chile’s first principle identifies the need for self-awareness and self-identity, which comes from a process of socialisation and feelings of belonging. In her research on stigma and women living with HIV, Bruning (2009) found that a connection with people in similar situations helped those living with HIV to reduce feelings of isolation and stigma and also helped improve self-esteem and coping skills. The peer support, socialisation and feelings of belonging that Positive Women offered to women and their families living with HIV was invaluable, not only for coming to terms with the condition, but also for contesting notions of a ‘spoiled identity’ that many of the women had internalised. As Bruning (2009) discusses, a diagnosis of HIV is a traumatic event which requires continuous adjustment in regards to both psychological and physiological losses. Recalling her own reaction to her diagnosis, she states:

As well as the shock of being told I had AIDS, I remember feeling like I was poisonous. Even today, twenty years on, and even though I can now say it jokingly [‘my poisonous blood’], I feel like I am a danger to society, that I am dirty and contagious, a marked person with a ‘spoiled identity’ (see footnote 1). While this may initially have been a stigma set by society, I took it on and internalized it to the point that I believed it for many years and possibly still do to some extent (Bruning, 2007, p. 6).

The second principle of community development practice that Chile (2007) outlines is the need for a distinct collective identity that the community can take pride in. From its onset in 1991, Positive Women wanted a distinct collective identity that was different from that of support groups for men living with HIV or AIDS. Creating a space for women living with HIV or AIDS was fundamental to this collective identity, as was creating a community which the women could take pride in.

The third principle outlined by Chile (2007) focuses on the need for collective action to protect and promote self and collective identity, which meets a common vision for desired future expectations. A common vision promoted by Positive Women has been to provide a support network for women and families living with HIV or AIDS. Embedded within their collective vision has been a strong desire to raise awareness of HIV and AIDS in the community via educational programmes with a focus on destigmatisation and prevention, predominantly targeting the heterosexual community as they had identified a gap in this area (Bruning, 2009).

In 2004 the collective community identity and common vision espoused by Positive Women was at risk of collapsing after the resignation of the two voluntary coordinators. It was decided the organisation needed to employ a full-time, paid national coordinator to ensure the sustainability of the organisation, and Jane Bruning was appointed to this role in September 2004 (Bruning, 2009). With the appointment of a full-time national coordinator, Positive Women was subsequently better positioned to develop the internal capacity to undertake their collective visions and goals. One of the first actions Jane undertook was to update the data base, which at the time of her appointment included thirty members (women living with HIV). Of these, it was found that five of the members had died, a poignant reality of the Positive Women community group. The membership has now increased to over two hundred, with an affiliated membership (family/partners of members) of over a thousand.

As with many not-for-profit community development organisations, consistent and sustained funding has often been challenging for Positive Women. While the organisation has sought to be as independent as possible, it has conceded that accessing philanthropic agencies for funding assistance has been necessary for its survival. Having a full-time national coordinator significantly improved the financial viability of Positive Women with targeted funding applications. The main funding source has been the MAC AIDS Fund, which donates one hundred percent of its sales from the MAC Viva Glam range of lipsticks and lip glosses to organisations working with people with HIV or AIDS (MAC AIDS Fund, nd; “Beauty: Lipstick power,” 2010). Other significant funding bodies include Foundation North (formerly ASB Community Trust), the Lotteries Grant Board and more recently, the Ministry of Health (see footnote 2). The external funding has enabled the continued employment of a full-time coordinator and has also enabled Positive Women to carry out its campaigns, educational seminars and other programmes (J. Bruning, personal communication, April 22, 2016).

Chile (2007) argues that good community development must also operate at a political level where the community becomes the locale for action and conscientisation. With a full-time and paid national coordinator at the helm of Positive Women, the organisation has been able to address the political level of community development by effectively organising and managing the group and members to undertake action for social change and development via a number of campaigns and educational events. These include presenting a petition to parliament for access to and subsidy of the female condom (FC) in New Zealand. The National Coordinator of Positive Women was invited to speak to the Health Select Committee about their petition and proposal for the FC. A letter was also sent to Pharmac requesting subsidy of the FC as it is currently (2016) out of reach, price wise, for most women. In 2007, Positive Women was the first organisation to release an HIV destigmatisation campaign which focused on women. The aim of the campaign was to get people to look beyond the common stereotypes of HIV. It did this by using the faces and stories of real women living with HIV, showing them as everyday people; mothers, sisters, daughters, grandmothers and wives. It was a multimedia campaign using posters, a targeted promotion through women’s magazines, including an article in the NZ Listener and a poster campaign on the sides of buses in both Auckland and Wellington. Positive Women has advocated for women by being on the implementation and monitoring group for the HIV Antenatal Screening Programme, being part of the review panel on breast- and other feeding options for babies born to women living with HIV, and joining the advisory group for the Sexual Reproductive Health Action plan, to name just a few such activities. Chile (2007) describes this type of active involvement as community development intervention.

POSITIVE WOMEN AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT INTERVENTION
Community development intervention seeks to empower individuals, groups and communities to attain wellbeing though collective action (Chile, 2007). The focus on wellbeing has been an inherent principle of Positive Women’s kaupapa.

An annual event which focuses on wellbeing is the Positive Women Retreat. The first retreat for women living with HIV was held in 1996 at a yoga retreat centre in the Waitakere ranges, Auckland. Twelve women attended and for many it was the first time they had been given an opportunity to talk and share experiences with other women living with HIV in a confidential and safe environment. Social workers Judith Ackroyd and Suzy Morrison facilitated this first retreat. They helped the women feel welcome and supported, doing all of the cooking and cleaning so the women could rest and relax (J. Bruning, personal communication, April 22, 2016). This event encapsulates the type of community development intervention Chile (2007) describes as promoting non-material wellbeing which enhances human dignity, personal security and empowerment.

The annual retreat has recently changed its format as a result of reduced funding and community members’ discussion and dialogue. Held mid-year, it now offers one full-day seminar that is open to the public, as well as two closed seminar days for women living with HIV. The public day is held at the Maritime Room in Auckland’s Viaduct district and is well attended by a wide range of professionals such as doctors, nurses, midwives, dentists and others in the health sector, as well as women living with HIV. The closed retreat is generally held on Auckland’s North Shore and includes a mixture of workshops, skills building and updates on the latest developments in the treatment of HIV and AIDS. The retreat also offers a variety of relaxing natural therapies such as aromatherapy, reflexology, head and shoulders massage and relaxation massage. The workshops and talking circles provide an opportunity for women to talk with their peers, who understand what it is like to live with HIV (Positive Women, 2012). There is a focus on creating an atmosphere of trust and acceptance, enabling the women to share experiences and information. The links between stress and the immune system have been well researched; having an opportunity to de-stress and connect has a significant effect on the functioning of a compromised immune system (Padget & Glasser, 2003).

One of the aims of community development intervention is to empower individuals, groups and communities to realise their wellbeing via collective action (Chile, 2007). The annual retreat is one example of how Positive Women has sought to enhance their wellbeing. Another important aspect of the retreat is that it provides a space for women to ‘come out’ about living with HIV, without fear of being shamed or berated. This is an important consideration, as many of the women have deeply embedded feelings of guilt, shame and fear, and do not necessarily believe they are entitled to wellbeing. Talking about living with HIV can be a liberating and empowering experience, and the annual retreats have been pivotal in helping women living with HIV to not only talk openly about living with HIV, but also contest discourses of stigma and discrimination. For the participants in the retreat there is a sense of connection and relationality which can be framed as what Mackay (2014) terms ‘the art of belonging’. For Mackay, the ‘art of belonging’ requires tolerance, forgiveness, acceptance of imperfections and nurturance of those communities which sustain us. The retreat makes space for all of these elements to come together at both an individual and collective level.

In their research about women living with HIV/AIDS and a community-based HIV/AIDS service organisation in Massachusetts, DeMarco and Johnsen (2003) also found that retreats are an important aspect of wellness planning for HIV-positive women. As with the Positive Women’s retreat, the Massachusetts women also incorporated information about mind-body medicine, the effects of stress on the immune system, skills-building, activities for stress reduction, and an update on conventional treatment strategies. Both groups also felt it was important to have a trained facilitator present because of the frequently painful discussions that occurred when the women shared traumatic experiences. As with Positive Women, the Massachusetts community-based group also found the retreat was an important place to discuss the way forward and issues of significance to the group (DeMarco & Johnsen, 2003). Similar themes that emerged from both retreats include concerns about younger women at risk in the community, living with a chronic illness, and planning educational seminars for members and the general public (DeMarco & Johnsen, 2003; Positive Women, 2012).

Women living with HIV are often a hidden and hard to reach group, particularly those women who live outside of the large centres. Many women living with HIV also have care-giving responsibilities for their children and partners. Some have partners and children who also have HIV and often the care of loved ones takes precedence over their own self-care. The annual retreat is one way women living with HIV throughout New Zealand can have some respite from care-giving, and also become involved in the organisation by attending the AGM which is held during the retreat.
Financial capital and adequate income are necessary elements in good community development practices, which seek to promote equality and equity and the right to participate (Chile, 2007). Funding is thus sought to pay for the accommodation and other costs, and to provide transport assistance for women living with HIV who live outside of Auckland. As Chile (2007) argues, good community development practice must abandon the myth that only the poor and disadvantaged benefit from such practice.  Rather, the role of community development is to ensure all citizens and high-needs groups attain access to the benefits of good practice, community wellbeing, cohesive networks and community-based initiatives.

POSITIVE WOMEN AND ITS COMMUNITY VISION
Over the past twenty-five years, Positive Women has attained its vision for a viable community-based HIV and AIDS service organisation via collaborative processes of decision making and ‘ownership’ by the community living with HIV. Local leadership was established at the community level by creating a full-time coordinator role, a decision which came out of the Positive Women retreat AGM in 2004. The vision and the actions of the organisation are derived through collective decision making with an awareness of the issues which affect the wellbeing of its members. An aspect of this vision has been to collaborate with other organisations, such as Body Positive (see footnote 3), NZAF (see footnote 4),  and INA (see footnote 5).  This collaboration and sharing of resources is the essence of whakawhānaungātanga, one of the principles that in Aotearoa New Zealand transcends differences by creating a common vision and strategy.

Marama Pala, the Kaiwhakahaere (Executive Director) of INA is also a member of Positive Women and, in 1993, was the first Māori woman to disclose her HIV status (INA, 2008). Marama is passionate about Māori living with HIV having access to resources, and is a strong advocate for Māori and other indigenous peoples. Positive Women and INA collaborate to support wahine Māori, and Marama has assisted Positive Women on formal occasions when it has been appropriate to open with powhiri and mihimihi.

The whakawhānaungātanga that Positive Women has cultivated with Marama Pala and INA has been a genuine attempt to foster bicultural understanding and acknowledgment, but it is woefully inadequate as there is no internal practice of Māori tikanga, and Positive Women Inc. relies on INA to do the public ‘formalities’. This latter practice is tokenism to some extent, although with the best intentions. As the two organisations are often at the same meetings and events, this arrangement no longer works very well. As Munford and Walsh-Tapiata (2006) point out, there are many tensions in community development work practice as community organisations strive to understand indigeneity and the meaning of biculturalism. One of the main challenges for Positive Women has been around its capacity to develop a robust Treaty of Waitangi policy and a meaningful bicultural framework in which to engage both its Māori and tauiwi communities.

Recently, Positive Women has been working with Joseph Waru and Kim Penetito, two Māori social practitioners who have engaged in community development and worked in the not-for-profit sector for the past twenty years. Joseph and Kim will be assisting Positive Women to become more actively involved with the Māori community, learn more about Maori protocol and tikanga and create a policy based on the bicultural nature of Aotearoa New Zealand. Munford and Walsh-Tapiata (2006) argue that one of the tasks for community workers is to translate the articles of the Treaty into their daily practices and contextualise the Treaty as a living document that can guide community development practice with diverse populations. Certainly, this is a task that Positive Women is keen to undertake.

Chile (2007a) argues that one of the challenges for community development in Aotearoa New Zealand is to develop empowering practices that encompass the values and goals of a growing multicultural society within a bicultural context. Positive Women’s members represent New Zealand’s multicultural, refugee background and migrant population, and it has been strategic in employing a Rwandan woman, Judith Mukakayange as its Health Promoter. Judith is herself a refugee and a woman living with HIV. Since Judith’s appointment, women who are African migrants and refugees have been more comfortable accessing Positive Women, which is evident in the increasing number of refugee and migrant women who have become members of the organisation. By seeing that ‘one of their own’ is not afraid to be public and speak out about HIV has helped many to become more confident and empowered. Some have started English classes and further training, many have gone to work and integrated more within their communities. Some have left their marriages which were both physically and psychologically abusive, and where HIV was often used to manipulate (J. Bruning, personal communication, May 31, 2016).

A further element of Positive Women’s community vision has been to become more involved in regional networks. It is a member of the Asia Pacific Alliance (APA) and has developed links with the Asia Pacific Network of People Living with HIV (APN+). Jane Bruning was the UNAIDS NGO Delegate for Asia-Pacific throughout 2011-2013. This is an important role, ensuring the priorities and interests of people and communities living with HIV are considered in UNAIDS decisions and policies.

As Positive Women has evolved, its vision has tended to focus more on the conscientisation of the community, particularly through training and educational seminars. Its educational seminars range from personal stories from women living with HIV to the latest information about HIV medications and treatments.6

CURRENT STATE AND FUTURE DIRECTION
Antiretroviral medication has enabled people living with HIV to live long and fulfilling lives, and mostly remain healthy and strong. Consequently, many of the members of Positive Women have been able to go back to work and do not need the services of Positive Women as much as they did in the past. There are now fewer women dropping in to Positive Women’s Community House, Rose House in Mt Eden, and fewer women are taking advantage of the social events on offer. The decrease in active involvement from Positive Women members can be interpreted as a positive sign. The most effective community development projects make themselves redundant with the outcome that their communities no longer require their support. However, members have made it very clear they want Positive Women to continue to raise awareness about HIV in the community and to focus on reducing HIV-related stigma and discrimination.

Have destigmatisation campaigns worked, or has New Zealand society become less discriminatory? Has internalised stigma decreased after many years of peer support and programmes or have women just lost interest? Anecdotal evidence points to the former, but more research and an exploration of the benefits and ideas for the improvement of the service would provide further insight.

While the support offered to newly diagnosed women remains integral to its vision, the organisation has reached some crossroads. A survey was recently sent out to members to ascertain ways in which Positive Women could continue to support women and families living with HIV. Several members suggested a closed Facebook group where members could have private online chats. It was felt that women in the regions could particularly benefit from such a development. While this initiative was implemented, the group has only around 25 members, with only two of these utilising the chat room on a regular basis (J. Bruning, personal communication, April 22, 2016). While the women do not appear to need the services on a regular basis, anecdotal feedback from members indicate that they see Positive Women as a safety net to turn to in times of need and as a public voice representing women and families in Aotearoa New Zealand living with HIV.

As Haigh (2014) argues, the concept of community is a lasting ideal, from kinship communities through to communities of association. Positive Women is a community development response for women living with HIV that was founded via a community of kinship and association, and its ideals and aspirations remain. New Zealand, as Aimers (2011) reminds us, has an impressive record of women’s involvement in their communities. The challenge for Positive Women is to develop new ways to bring its community together and to continue to focus on those issues that are of paramount importance to women living with HIV and their families. As a viable organisation it continuously evolves with its members’ needs, and as an organisation run by women for women it employs principles of collaboration, partnership, reciprocity and engagement, which are all compatible with community development principles.

CONCLUSION
A community development response to the needs of women and families living with HIV or AIDS provides an important network for women living with HIV to connect and collaborate with their peers, as well as health and other professionals. As Positive Women and other community-based HIV and AIDS service organisations have found, empowerment stems from community development interventions through which community members can develop actions which are culturally and socially relevant to them.

Positive Women carries out what Milner (2008) describes as relational community development practices driven by compassion, which enhances social trust, fairness and justice. Positive Women advocates for greater acceptance and understanding of those affected by HIV. One of its central priorities is to destigmatise HIV and to ensure healthcare workers and members of society in general treat people living with HIV with dignity and respect (Bruning, 2009). As Bruning (2009) states “[t]he involvement of people living with and affected by HIV and AIDS is both paramount and instrumental to all HIV related advocacy, policies and interventions” (p. 113).

Positive Women is a community development intervention that is underpinned by the values and principles espoused by the governance and management of the organisation as directed by the community itself. Its primary objectives have been the enhancement of the wellbeing of women living with HIV and the creation of a community where these women can share their common experiences and have a sense of identity and belonging. Recognising that the wellbeing of the individual is intrinsically connected to the wellbeing of the community (Chile, 2007), Positive Women has not only made a significant difference to the lives of women living with HIV or AIDS, but also to the wider community through its campaigns and promotions. Yet this community is not necessarily a community of choice, but more of circumstances. Because of the way it was developed and managed it became a community of the spirit, where women living with HIV have been able to reach out to one another and find inspiration, courage, friendship and allies.

REFERENCES

AIDS Epidemiology Group. (2009). Retrieved from  http://dnmeds.otago.ac.nz/departments/psm/research/aids/epi_surveill.html

AIDS Epidemiology Group. (2016). AIDS-NZ Newsletter. Issue 75. Department of Preventive and Social Medicine, Dunedin School of Medicine, New Zealand. Retrieved from http://dnmeds.otago.ac.nz/departments/psm/research/aids/newsletters.html

Aimers, J. (2011). The impact of New Zealand ‘Third Way’ style government on women in community development. Community Development Journal, 46(3), July 302-314.

Bennett, J. (2007). New Zealand women living with HIV/AIDS: A feminist perspective. Nursing Praxis in New Zealand, 23(1), 4-16.

Bruning, J., Connor, H., & Napan, K. (2013). HIV and AIDS policies globally: A New Zealand perspective. Retrieved from http://unitec.researchbank.ac.nz/handle/10652/3139

Bruning, J. (2007). HIV and stigma: The impact of self stigma on women living with HIV or AIDS. (Unpublished research project, Master of Social Practice). Unitec Institute of Technology, Auckland, New Zealand.

Bruning, J. (2009). Stigma and women living with HIV: A co-operative inquiry. (Unpublished Master of Social Practice thesis). Unitec Institute of Technology, Auckland, New Zealand. Retrieved from http://unitec.researchbank.ac.nz/handle/10652/1385

Carter, J., Howden-Chapman, P., Park, J., & Scott, K. (1996). An intimate reliance: health reform, viral infection and the safety of blood products. In P. Davis (Ed.), Intimate details and vital statistics: AIDS, sexuality and the social order in New Zealand (pp. 168-184). Auckland, NZ: Auckland University Press.

Chile, L., (2007). Good practice in community development work. In L. Chile (Ed.), Community development practice in New Zealand: Exploring good practice (pp. 21-34). Auckland, NZ: Institute of Public Policy, AUT.

Chile, L., (2007a). The three tikanga of community development in Aotearoa New Zealand. In L. Chile (Ed.), Community development practice in New Zealand: Exploring good practice (pp.35-71). Auckland, NZ: Institute of Public Policy, AUT.

DeMarco, R., & Johnsen, C. (2003). Taking action in communities: Women living with HIV/AIDS lead the way. Journal of Community Health Nursing, 20(1), 51-62.

Padget, A., & Glaser, R. (2003). How stress influences the immune response. TRENDS in Immunology, 24(8), 444-448.

Dickson, N. (1998). AIDS-NZ Newsletter, AIDS Epidemiology Group, (37), 1-4. Retrieved from http:// dnmeds.otago.ac.nz/departments/psm/research/aids/newsletters.html

Goffman, E. (1963). Stigma: Notes on the management of spoiled identity. New York, US: David & Shuster.

Haigh, D. (2014). Community Development and New Zealand local authorities in the 1970s and 1980s. New Zealand Sociology, 29(1), 79-97.

Ife, J., & Fiske, L. (2006). Human rights and community work: Complementary theories and practices. International Social Work, 49(3), 297-308.

INA. (2008). Retrieved from http://www.ina.maori.nz/about.html

MAC AIDS Fund. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.macaidsfund.org/

Mackay, H. (2014). The art of belonging. Sydney, Australia: Macmillan.

McAllister, S. (2009). AIDS New Zealand. Dunedin: Otago University.

McAllister, S. (2011). AIDS New Zealand. Dunedin: Otago University.

Milner, V. (2008). Rekindling the flame of community through compassion – a call for leadership toward compassionate community. Aotearoa New Zealand Social Work, Issue 3. 3 – 13.

Munford, R., & Walsh-Tapiata, W. (2006). Community development: working in the bicultural context of Aotearoa New Zealand. Community Development Journal, 44 (4). 426-442.

Positive Women. (2012). Positive Women Annual Report. Positive Women Inc. Auckland, NZ: Author. UNAIDS. (2016). Retrieved from: http://www.unaids.org/en/resources/documents/2016/Global-AIDS-update-2016

---

1 Goffman (1963) used the term ‘spoiled identity’ to describe an identity that causes a person to experience stigma. It is a term which many people who are living with HIV or AIDS use to self-describe their condition.

2 A full list of sponsors of 2 Positive Women can be viewed at: http://www.positivewomen.org.nz/our-sponsors/

3 Body Positive Inc. is a group funded and run for people with HIV/AIDS.

4 NZAF is the New Zealand AIDS Foundation.

5 INA is the Māori, indigenous and South Pacific HIV/AIDS Foundation.

---

Save