{"id":509,"date":"2016-10-27T00:36:03","date_gmt":"2016-10-27T00:36:03","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.unitec.ac.nz\/whanake\/?p=509"},"modified":"2017-06-21T05:06:33","modified_gmt":"2017-06-21T05:06:33","slug":"community-development-in-aotearoa-new-zealand-a-historical-journey","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.unitec.ac.nz\/whanake\/index.php\/2016\/10\/27\/community-development-in-aotearoa-new-zealand-a-historical-journey\/","title":{"rendered":"Community Development In Aotearoa New Zealand: A Historical Journey"},"content":{"rendered":"

\u00a0<\/a>\"Image<\/a>by JENNY AIMERS<\/a> and PETER WALKER<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

Click here to read the pdf<\/a><\/p>\n

ABSTRACT<\/strong><\/span>
\n 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\u2019s 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.<\/span><\/p>\n

INTRODUCTION<\/strong><\/span>
\n 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\u2019s 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\u2019s 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.<\/span><\/p>\n

THE HISTORY OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT IN AOTEAROA NEW ZEALAND<\/strong><\/span>
\n The special character of community development practice in Aotearoa New Zealand was developed from two distinct cultural origins. Firstly, pre-colonisation, where M\u0101ori 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).<\/span><\/p>\n

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.<\/span><\/p>\n

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.<\/span><\/p>\n

\"Figure\"<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

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.<\/span><\/p>\n

COMMUNITY REBUILDING: 1930s-1940s<\/strong><\/span>
\n 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 M\u0101ori 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, M\u0101ori Affairs Department, 1952).<\/span><\/p>\n

YOUTH NEEDS: 1950s-1960s<\/strong><\/span>
\n 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 \u2018counter-culture\u2019 movements (Johns, 1993). Rapid urbanisation, post World War Two, particularly for indigenous M\u0101ori 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).<\/span><\/p>\n

RIGHTS: 1960s-1970s<\/strong><\/span>
\n 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 M\u0101ori renaissance, Pacific peoples\u2019 diaspora and developing youth cultures. Such rights-based work was often undertaken by volunteers rather than paid workers (Vanderpyl, 2004).<\/span><\/p>\n

The various forms of feminism were hugely significant for women from all types of communities: from solo mothers; M\u0101ori women; immigrant women, particularly those originating from the Pacific; through to rural women. Beginning with \u2018for women by women\u2019 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).<\/span><\/p>\n

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).<\/span><\/p>\n

STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS: 1980s-1990s<\/strong><\/span>
\n 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\u2019s 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 \u2018personal is political\u2019 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 \u2018M\u0101ori renaissance\u2019 and calls by M\u0101ori for te tino rangatiratanga (self-determination), and a call for the Treaty of Waitangi to be honoured as the nation\u2019s founding document. This led to the rise of bi-culturalism as the \u201c\u2026relationship between the state\u2019s founding cultures…\u201d (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 M\u0101ori. For those working in the wider community this had implications for how they engage with M\u0101ori communities, with particular emphasis on understanding the effects of colonisation and how to conduct appropriate consultation on issues that might concern M\u0101ori. Likewise, there followed a growing discourse that M\u0101ori matters were a subject that required the engagement of M\u0101ori researchers.<\/span><\/p>\n

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.<\/span><\/p>\n

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\u2019s \u2018Third Way\u2019 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 \u2018social development approach\u2019 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 \u2018human capital\u2019 with \u2018social capital\u2019 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 \u201cthe social development approach is to \u2018reconcile social justice with an energetic and competitive economy\u2019.\u201d 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).<\/span><\/p>\n

INCLUSION: 1990s-2000s<\/strong><\/span>
\n 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 \u2018third way-style\u2019 policies by the Labour Government in 1999.<\/span><\/p>\n

The third phase of neoliberalism focused on partnering, which appeared to align with a communitarian outlook. While the government\u2019s third sector partnering strategy has been described as \u2018neo-communitarianism\u2019 this strategy ignored the obvious power imbalance between the two partners. Larner and Butler (2005) observed that community-based yet state-legitimised \u2018strategic brokers\u2019 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.<\/span><\/p>\n

The third phase of neoliberalism was also influenced by Robert Putnam\u2019s 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 \u2018long term council community plan\u2019 (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\u2019 statutory role was vague, \u201c\u2026promoting the social, cultural, environmental and economic well-being of their communities\u201d (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.<\/span><\/p>\n

STRENGTHS: EARLY 2000s<\/strong><\/span>
\n 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\u2019s 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).<\/span><\/p>\n

Putman\u2019s 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 \u2018community capacity\u2019 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\u2019s 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\u2019s form of social capital by local authorities and government agencies conveniently suppressed attention to inequality, conflict and the role of power (Eketone & Shannon, 2006).<\/span><\/p>\n

Another government focus during this phase was \u2018capacity building\u2019, 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\u2019Brien & Sanders, 2008). Craig and Porter (2006) describe the government policy of the time as \u201c\u2026 a strange new hybrid\u2026partnership and competitive contracts, inclusion and sharp discipline, free markets and community\u2026(creating) impossible transaction costs and slippery multilevel accountabilities\u201d (p. 219).<\/span><\/p>\n

Despite this interest in partnership and community capacity, government support for community development declined during this phase (Aimers & Walker, 2008). Even the terms \u2018community development\u2019 or \u2018community work\u2019 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.<\/span><\/p>\n

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).<\/span><\/p>\n

With no professional body or association to lobby on its behalf, community development effectively went underground \u2013 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)\u00a0 termed as new governmental spaces and subjects that emerged out of \u201cmultiple and contested discourses and practices\u201d (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).<\/span><\/p>\n

The one exception to this generally depressed state of community development was the growth of M\u0101ori social service providers, which grew from almost zero to 1000 between 1984 and 2004 (Tennant, O\u2019Brien & Sanders, 2008).<\/span><\/p>\n

COMMUNITY-LED\/SOCIAL ENTREPRENEUR: 2005 ONWARDS<\/strong><\/span>
\n 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\u2019 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\u2019Brien & 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.<\/span><\/p>\n

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.<\/span><\/p>\n

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).<\/span><\/p>\n

As noted earlier, this time period highlighted the adoption of the third phase of neoliberalism around key rhetorical terms such as \u2018partnership\u2019, 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.<\/span><\/p>\n

However, one significant area of advancement at this time was M\u0101ori development; The movement for indigenous (M\u0101ori) development grew in parallel to non-M\u0101ori community development models by creating new perspectives based within M\u0101ori communities (Eketone, 2006; Eketone, 2013) as well as influencing the process of P\u0101keh\u0101 engaging with M\u0101ori communities.<\/span><\/p>\n

M\u0101ori development focuses on a decolonising and self-determining agenda that separates M\u0101ori development from other forms of community development. M\u0101ori development has its own theoretical background that reflects a uniquely M\u0101ori perspective on notions of identity and community, expressed in multiple forms. These forms include M\u0101ori community development (social justice), Iwi development (tribal-based economic development), Marae development (upholding the mana or reputation of the Marae or hap\u016b i.e., local tribal group) and positive M\u0101ori development (political advancement and self-determination) (Eketone, 2013). Eketone highlights the complexity and pluralistic nature of tribal-based M\u0101ori 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 M\u0101ori focus on process as an outcome in itself: \u201cIf you have maintained a project where people have pulled together, had a satisfying involvement and finished with their mana intact, then that is good \u2013 the community has been strengthened\u201d (Eketone, 2013, p. 197).<\/span><\/p>\n

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 \u2018social innovation\u2019 (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\u2019s Families Commission.<\/span><\/p>\n

WHERE IS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT IN 2016?<\/strong><\/span>
\n 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 \u201c\u2026support local initiatives, projects, activities and community services\u201d (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 \u201c\u2026provide advice, information, support and resources to assist the development of resilient and prosperous communities, hap\u016b and iwi\u201d (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, \u201cI 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\u201d (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).<\/span><\/p>\n

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 \u201c\u2026a negative effect on the enthusiasm and pace in which CLD projects are carried out\u201d (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 \u2018whole of community\u2019 consensus that was required by the community-led approach, particularly those with larger more diverse populations (Department of Internal Affairs, 2013).<\/span><\/p>\n

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 \u0100kina 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).<\/span><\/p>\n

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 \u2018community development work\u2019 and some did not want to be labelled \u2018community development workers\u2019, 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:<\/span><\/p>\n