The chapter focuses on the evolution of methods of social planning, community development, and community organizing, and the creation of community social services.

It provides an assessment of the challenges facing community practice today.

PRE-PROFESSIONAL COMMUNITY WORK (1800-1865)

As soon as the first European settlers landed on the shores of the North American continent, community was a central focus and concern.

Their survival depended on the maintenance of strong, close-knit communities that provided structure and mutual aid and met settlers’ needs for affiliation.

The first community-based social welfare program in what became the United States was created by the Dutch Reformed Church of New Amsterdam (a colony settled in 1609 that later became New York), which established a voluntary collection to be distributed among the needy poor (Stern & Axinn, 2010).

In 1657, the Scots Charitable Society in Boston became the first of many benevolent associations that sprang up in colonial America to aid the poor, care for the sick, and bury the dead (Compton, 1980).

A number of religious communities committed themselves to establishing institutional care for those in need.

The Ursuline Sisters in New Orleans founded a private institution for girls in 1729, the first institution for children in the colonies (Stern & Axinn, 2010).

Through the religious order she founded, Saint Elizabeth Ann Seton (1774-1821) established elementary schools, numerous orphanages (including the Orphan’s Asylum of Philadelphia in 1814), free schools for the poor, boarding schools, and hospitals.

As early as the 1840s, Jewish young adults established literary societies and other social groups, forerunners of the Jewish Center movement (Compton, 1980).

In 1851, Thomas Valentine Sullivan, a retired sea captain, established the first American Young Men’s Christian Association (YMCA) in Boston (Compton, 1980).

Two years later, Anthony Bowen, a freed slave, founded the first YMCA for African Americans in Washington, D.C.

In that same year, the Reverend Charles Loring Brace organized the Children’s Aid 2728 PART I THE CONTEXT OF COMMUNITY PRACTICE Society of New York, initiating the idea of foster home placement.

Brace’s model was soon emulated by the Church Home Society in Boston (1855), the Henry Watson Children’s Aid Society in Baltimore (1860), and the Home for Little Wanderers in New York (1861).

In 1860, the first Boys’ Club was established by a women’s church group in Hartford, Connecticut (Compton, 1980).

Social Action and Remediation

Early in the 19th century, community-based organizations that focused on a variety of social justice issues, such as inequitable working conditions, urban poverty, slavery, alcoholism, and political disenfranchisement, emerged in the United States.

Inequitable Working Conditions Soon after the colonies were established, North American laborers applied the strength of their shared communities to their struggle for better working conditions, fair wages, and decent hours.

As early as 1636, a group of fishermen in Maine mutinied when their wages were withheld (Stern & Axinn, 2010).

Shoemakers organized in Philadelphia and Boston in 1793, and printers in New York in 1794 (Estey, 1967).Fledgling unions emerged and expanded during the first half of the 19th century.In 1827,15 unions formed the first citywide federation in Philadelphia.

By 1836, similar federations existed in 13 cities, mostly along the Eastern seaboard, inspiring carpenters, shoemakers, printers, and other workers to form national trade unions between 1834 and 1837.In 1834, the National Trades Union attempted to combine all local, national, and city central unions into a national federation of craft unions.

These promising efforts, however, collapsed when the depression of 1837 wiped out the unions’ bargaining leverage.

“Even though these beginning national unionizing efforts did not result in permanent organizations, they sowed the seeds of all later organizational forms” (Estey, 1967, p.13).

Poverty Alleviation While poverty alleviation has generally been addressed on an individual basis in North America, by the 19th century, local community-based associations in the United States took responsibility for its administration, modeling their organizations after similar experiments in Great Britain and what later became Germany.

Great Britain.

As early as 1819, the Scottish Reverend Dr.Chalmers (1780-1847) introduced a system of community-based friendly visiting in his 10,000-member parish of St.John’s, in the poorest section of Glasgow.

Chalmers divided his membership into 25 districts, over which he placed a large corps of volunteer deacons (Roxborogh, 1999).

These deacons were charged with overseeing the welfare of poor families in their care, making friendly visits and “giving relief in case of extreme necessity, but doing all they could to enable the poor to help themselves” (Bliss, 1897, p.219).Germany.

Building on Chalmers’s work, the Elberfeld system was established in Germany in 1852 as “a kind of expanded district visiting system, supported by the communal authorities” (Loch, 1888, p.10).

Its founders believed that “active charity bore a communal character” whose members have, “within the narrow society of the commune, a claim on common help as members of that body and not as members of the State” (p.50).

Unpaid visitors, or almoners, listened to “the request of the poor with kindness of heart, friendliness and firmness, so as to ascertain, after careful scrutiny, the amount and kind of assistance necessary” (p.54).

The Elberfeld system soon spread to Hamburg, Bremen, and Berlin and influenced later developments in England and the United States (Loch, 1888).

The United States.As early as the 1830s, private benevolent associations began to appear.

For example, in 1843, in the aftermath of the depression of 1837 when unemployment and poverty soared, members of the New York City Mission SocietyChapter 2 History and Context for Community Practice in North America 29 established the New York Association for Improving the Condition of the Poor (AICP) in 1843 (Coble, 2010).

The AICP and its counterparts in other cities experimented in “uplifting poor people through improving their character rather than merely provide material aid to the needy” (Trattner, 1999, pp.60-65).

The AICP subsequently became the Community Service Society of New York and is today the oldest continuously operating nonprofit social service organization in the United States.

Abolition

In the early 19th century, abolitionists in northern states organized antislavery societies to express their growing concern over its horrors (Walters, 1978).

In 1832, the New England Anti-Slavery Society was established, and the following year delegates from several states founded the American Anti-Slavery Society, whose goal was immediate emancipation.

“By 1838, the Anti-Slavery Society claimed a membership of 250,000 with over 1,300 auxiliaries” (p.80).

Alcohol Consumption

After the Revolutionary War, inexpensive production of corn in the Midwest encouraged whiskey drinking, even among young children.Between 1800 and 1830, the average American consumed more than 5 gallons per year (Stern & Axinn, 2010).

Widespread alcohol abuse destroyed families, increased unemployment and exacerbated family poverty, and fostered domestic abuse.

Rather than seeking individualized solutions, women organized among themselves to fight this evil, less for moral reasons than out of collective economic and social interest.

In town after town, temperance societies spontaneously developed.

Reflecting this spirit of reform, the American Society for the Promotion of Temperance was founded in 1826.

Within a short period, its efforts helped reduce the annual per capita consumption of whiskey from 5 gallons to less than 2 gallons.

In the 1830s and 1840s, thousands of local temperance societies formed to prohibit the sale of liquor altogether, the antecedents of the late 19th and early 20th century movement for prohibition (Stern & Axinn, 2010).

Women’s Suffrage

During this same era, women used communal associations to press for full political enfranchisement.

Women’s suffrage societies proliferated, culminating in the first Women’s Rights Convention in 1848 at Seneca Falls, New York.

At this convention, delegates demanded women’s suffrage and adopted a Declaration of Independence (Abramovitz, 1999).

ERA OF COMMUNITY SOCIAL WORK (1865-1915)

In the half century after the Civil War, which included the period of Reconstruction (1865-1876) and the Progressive Era (-1885-1915), the unfettered growth of interlocking corporations and monopolies (then called trusts) created huge centers of unregulated economic power in the United States.

Not only did citizens confront increased and intensified poverty, dangerous and unhealthy working conditions, slums, and exploitation of women and child labor, but the very survival of democracy seemed to hang in the balance (Stern & Axinn, 2010).

Consequently, much of the work of the earliest social workers centered on the intentional use of community to create a better society.

This included building community-based social organizations and services and engaging in community planning and research, community organizing and development, and social activism.

These efforts created the foundation for professional community social work practice.

Community-Based Social Organizations

After the Civil War, the number of communitybased social organizations expanded, improving the quality of civil society in the United States and remediating many social problems.

Some, including the30 first Young Women’s Christian Association (1866), the Salvation Army (1880), and the Boy Scouts of America (1910), were transplanted from England (Compton, 1980).

Many others, both sectarian and nonsectarian, were homegrown, including the American Aid Association (1883), Volunteers of America (1896), Goodwill Industries (1902), the New York Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (1875), Catholic Charities (1911), and the Family Service Association of America (Compton, 1980).

Between 1889 and her death in 1917, St.Xavier Frances Cabrini and the religious community she founded established more than 60 orphanages, schools, free clinics, hospitals, and other programs (Fitzsimons & Sheen, 1985).

Community-based organizations multiplied so rapidly that, before long, many people believed that America’s larger cities had an embarrassing number of them.

According to Trattner (1999): Charity directories took as many as one hundred pages to list and describe the numerous voluntary agencies that sought to alleviate misery, and combat every imaginable emergency.

In Philadelphia alone, in 1878, there were some eight hundred such groups of one kind or another, (pp.84-85) Of all the organizations founded during this period, three stand out for their roles in advancing community-oriented practice: the Charity Organization Societies (COS), Social Settlements, and School Community Centers.

Charity Organization Societies

In 1877, the Reverend Stephen Humphries Gurteen established the first COS in the United States in Buffalo, New York, “in response to rapid urbanization and industrialization and the effects of the Great Depression of 1873” (Kurzman, 1985, p.97).

During the following two decades, the COS movement grew rapidly.By 1882, there were 22 societies in the United States.

By 1895, their numbers had grown to 132 under slightly differing names, including 21 Relief Societies that largely adopted charity organization principles (Kellogg, PART I THE CONTEXT OF COMMUNITY PRACTICE 1897).

Similar developments occurred around the world.

By 1897, 239 COS organizations existed in various forms in 24 nations as far-flung as India, Russia, Egypt, Turkey, Australia, New Zealand, and Natal (Kellogg, 1897).

As the COS movement evolved, charity organizations naturally focused their efforts in neighborhoods where poor people lived.

COS leaders modified their organizational structure to engage communities directly by dividing their operations into districts to get charitable services closer to the people (Hallman, 1984) and, modeled after business enterprises, to deliver such services more efficiently.

They focused on dual roles of seeking to improve the poor and ensuring that charitable funds were spent carefully—even keeping card files on who had received their Christmas turkey.

The COS emphasized public participation and neighborhood social planning and encouraged the development and coordination of community-based social agencies (Compton, 1980).

Settlement House Movement

The first social organization that intentionally used community as a tool for social change was Toynbee Hall, established in the East End of London in 1884 by Canon Samuel Barnett and his wife, Henrietta.

Toynbee Hall and subsequent settlement houses were founded on the idea that university students from the elite class should live and work in deprived communities not only to understand community members’ lives but also to work with neighborhood residents to improve community conditions (“Settlement Movement,” 2008).

As settlements developed, they provided community-based services and engaged in neighborhood planning, research, policy advocacy, community organization, and political action.

Three years after Toynbee Hall opened, Dr.Stanton Coit and Charles B.

Stover founded the first American settlement house, the Neighborhood Guild—later called the University Settlement—on the Lower East Side of New York City (“Settlement Movement,” 2008).

The number of settlementChapter 2 History and Context for Community Practice in North America 31 houses soon increased rapidly (Trattner, 1999), among them, Hull-House—arguably the best-known settlement in North America—which was established in 1889 by Jane Addams and Ellen Gates Starr in Chicago.

Other settlements soon emerged, including Northwestern University Settlement (1891), the University of Chicago Settlement (1994), and Chicago Commons (1894) in Chicago; Andover House (1891) and the South End House (1892) in Boston; and Henry Street Settlement (1893) and Greenwich House (1902) in New York City (“Settlement Movement,” 2008).

By 1900, there were more than 100 settlement houses in the United States (Trattner, 1999, p.158); a decade later there were nearly 400 (Smith, 1999).

In 1902, Canada’s first social settlement, Evangelia House, was established in Toronto.By 1914, Toronto had six settlements, and six others were founded in cities from Vancouver to Montreal.

By the 1930s, the total of Canadian settlements had grown to 20 (James, n.d.).

School Community Centers As early as 1907, social reformers active in settlement houses, recreation programs, and adult education centers banded together to lobby for the after-school use of school buildings as neighborhood social centers.

In response, the Rochester Board of Education appropriated funds to use 16 school buildings for civic and social purposes serving both youth and adults.The experiment worked so well that in 1908, a citywide federation of schoolbased civic clubs was formed.

They were used as “centers for voting, employment information, recreation,education, health services, and Americanization programs” (Fisher, 1994, p.14).

By 1911, 48 cities were using 248 school buildings as community centers, and by 1919, schoolbased community centers were operating in 197 cities (Smith, 2002).

By 1930, New York City alone had almost 500 school community centers, with an annual aggregate attendance of more than 4 million persons.

The school community center became “an organizing center for the life of the neighborhood” (Fisher, 1994, p.16).

Community-Based Social Engagement The period after the Civil War saw an explosion of community-based social activity in which several of the important methods of community social work became established, including social program development, research and planning, community organizing, community development, policy advocacy, and social and political activism.

Settlement House Planning

Settlement houses, particularly Hull-House, engaged in local planning for neighborhood services.

Settlement workers collected, analyzed, and based their solutions to community problems on empirical evidence, exemplified in the “3 Rs” of the Settlement House Movement: residence, research, and reform.

Guided by Julia Lathrop (1858-1932), who later became the first director of the U.S.

Children’s Bureau, Hull-House residents undertook an extensive survey to expose the abysmal living conditions of the area.

Originally published in 1895, HullHouse Maps and Papers (2007) was an enormously influential research and statistical document, which included multiple maps reflecting the nationalities of residents and wages earned by immigrants and migrants living within a third of a square mile of the settlement.

The survey also reported on health conditions in the tenements, the danger of contaminated food, and the health effects of crowded slums, correlating these conditions with epidemics of tuberculosis and other diseases.

Workers used this research to push for municipal reforms, including improved waste disposal and the regulation and inspection of food (Hassencahl, 1993).

Community Organizing

While many COSs engaged in community-based advocacy and activism through anti-tuberculosis committees, housing committees, child labor committees, and remedial loan committees (Williams, 1985), until the 1930s, settlement workers were the main providers of community organization services (Fisher, 1994).

As Dillick (1953) described, the settlements assumed a “special responsibility for all families living within the radius of a few blocks of the settlement house sustaining a general relationship to the larger district encircling the neighborhood” (pp.34-35), bringing about needed changes through direct efforts, mobilization of local resources, and democratic social action (Dunham, 1970).

Fisher (1994) noted that settlement house community organizing was the most effective means by which people connected with one another to deal with the issues that affected their neighborhoods.

PART I THE CONTEXT OF COMMUNITY PRACTICE Settlement house social workers pressed local governments to improve sanitation and sewage disposal, provide clean water in neighborhoods, correct unhealthy conditions in tenements, improve housing codes, and transform public schools into neighborhood social centers (Addams, 1938).

In Boston, settlements helped organize 16 district improvement societies, whose members chose delegates to the citywide United Improvement Associations.

These associations “played a positive role in delivering needed services, raising public consciousness about slum conditions, and called for collective action to ameliorate problems” (Fisher, 1994, p.14).

When New York City politicians, in collusion with construction companies, proposed an elevated loop connecting the Brooklyn and Williamsburg bridges as a way to skim money from the public treasury, workers of the Henry Street and University Settlements organized mass meetings, sent out letters to influential people, persuaded newspapers to present their point of view, and bombarded the city council with letters and petitions.

Settlement workers at the Chicago Commons, including Allen T.Burns and Raymond Robins, “made surveys, filed reports, checked for voting frauds, organized political rallies and torch parades, and distributed posters and handbills,” and served as campaign managers, advisers on policy, statistics gatherers, and “braintrusters” for reform political administrations (Davis, 1982, pp.36-38).

Community Development

The concept of community economic development in the United States has its roots early in the 1900s in the historical dialogue between Booker T.Washington and W.E.B.Du Bois over the best way to achieve economic and political power for newly emancipated African American slaves (Clay & Jones, 2009).

Both leaders advocated for the importance of Black business creation and expansion (Cummings, 2001).

A specific method of developing communities socially and economically, however, was initiated by the federal government in 1908 as a result of President Theodore Roosevelt’s Country Life Commission,Chapter 2 History and Context for Community Practice in North America 33 which encouraged the Department of Agriculture (USDA) and land grant colleges to take a more active role in the lives of rural Americans.

The Cooperative Extension Service was established in 1914 through its base in land grant colleges.

Staff consulted and worked with farmers through a series of local clubs to plan and carry out local programs.

Community clubs were widely used in African American communities, based on the principle of developing projects with people rather than for them (Phifer, 1980).

During this period two strong leaders in different fields also contributed greatly to theory, practice, and the literature.

Mary Parker Follett wrote two books that illustrated the depth and breadth of her intellect.

Creative Experience (1924) dealt with concepts and strategies for helping people from different occupations and social backgrounds learn to communicate with each other and understand each other’s views.

Dynamic Administration, published in 1941, reflects the field of endeavor for which she was best known.

Her theory and recommendations for sound social administration are still studied, and her career reflected a gift for organizational leadership.

She worked in a Settlement House, and seeing how neighborhoods were deprived of educational, recreational, and social facilities, she was able to lead efforts to open School Centers for after-school education and recreation.

In 1924 she moved to England and became vice president of the National Community Center Association and a participant in the Taylor Society, which focused on advancing scientific management.

Eduard Lindeman was committed to working with groups, and much of his writing focused on methods of working with groups and intergroup work.

For a major part of his career he was a member of the faculty of the New York School of Social Work.

His works include An Approach to the Study of Functional Groups.

He was a social philosopher and wrote extensively about democracy, citizenship, and democratic values.

Community-Based Social Action

During the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the efforts of people in their neighborhoods to correct social problems continued on several fronts.

For example, in 1867, in rural towns across the United States, farmers banded together for their common economic and political well-being to found the Grange (“The Grange movement,” n.d.).

Among the most prominent advocacy efforts during this era were local women’s associations “concerned with matters affecting women as women and the potential of the vote for righting wrongs” (Fisher & Kling, 1993, pp.141-143).

These groups, both White and African American, banded together to form national federations to advocate for social change; they included the Prohibition Party, the Women’s Christian Temperance Union, and the Anti-Saloon League (Stern & Axinn, 2010).

Women also organized the National American Woman’s Suffrage Association (1900), the National Consumers League (1899), and the National Women’s Trade Union League (1903) (Hansan, 2011; National Consumers League, 2009).

Within a few years, the General Federation of Women’s Clubs and the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom (1915), among others, appeared.

During the Progressive Era, collective action was regarded as the first and most logical weapon against racism and segregation.

This was reflected in the formation of two community-based civil rights organizations: The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (1910) embodied the political and legal activism advocated by W.E.B.

Du Bois, while the National Urban League (1911), established to help Southern migrants adjust to urban living conditions in the North, reflected Booker T. Washington’s view that African Americans should concentrate on economic progress (Fisher & Kling, 1993).

INTERREGNUM BETWEEN THE WARS (1918-1940)

The boom period after World War I was known as the “Roaring Twenties” because of its many excesses, especially in the investment areas.

This recklessness came to an abrupt end in 1929 when the stock market crashed, sending the economy into a tailspin from which it did not recover until the beginning of World War II.

The Great34 PART I THE CONTEXT OF COMMUNITY PRACTICE Depression of the 1930s depleted many communities of resources and limited the expansion of community-based services.

While still active, COS and Settlement House programs were overshadowed by the general malaise that enveloped the nation.

With some notable exceptions, including labor and community organizing, the period between 1920 and the 1940s was one in which the political and cultural climate tended to silence minorities, women, and the least skilled (Betten & Austin, 1990).

The growing power of the Ku Klux Klan led to increased suppression of African Americans in the South and Midwest.

Through lynching, beatings, and a massive reign of terror, the White majority attempted to discourage forever any possibility of unity between poor African Americans and poor Whites.

Social Policies of the 1930s

During the Great Depression, President Franklin Roosevelt initially proposed temporary initiatives to ameliorate the effects of the economic emergency.

However, these tentative measures, labeled the First New Deal, represented a major break with the social policies of both the 1920s and the Progressive Era, because they established the precedent that the federal government should play an active role in regulating the economy and in the social welfare field.

The Second New Deal (1936-1939) went much further.The social and labor policies created in these years produced an enormous and permanent strengthening of government’s role in financing and organizing relief for needy citizens.Through the passage of the 1935 Social Security Act, Roosevelt created the cornerstone of the U.S. welfare state, which cemented the federal government’s responsibility to care for certain categories of the poor.

During the Second New Deal, Congress also passed the Fair Labor Standards Act, establishing a national minimum wage, the 40-hour workweek, and national child labor laws, and the National Labor Relations Act, which gave workers the legal right to bargain collectively with management (Estey, 1967; Patterson, 2001).

Community Planning

Aside from the Community Chests, which had been established during the first World War and early 1920s, and Councils of Social Agencies, community planning tended to be quiescent during the 1920s.

By the mid-1930s, however, social planning became one of the federal government’s important tools to overcome the effects of the Depression.

As a result, social workers began consciously to expand their skills to include planning as well.As Patterson (2001) notes: “The American Public Welfare Association and the American Association of Social Workers lobbied hard in the early 1930s for federal public works and employment relief.Social workers never showed more interest in public welfare than they did in the Depression years” (pp.44, 57-77).

Many social workers were recruited to serve in influential positions in the Roosevelt Administration, where they played an active role in the creation and implementation of federal plans and policies.

They included Ewan Clague, administrator of the Social Security Administration; Jane Hoey, director of the Bureau of Public Assistance; Frances Perkins, secretary of labor; and Wilbur J.”Mr.

Social Security” Cohen, author of the Social Security Act and later secretary of health education and welfare.Earlier, Grace and Edith Abbott, Eduard Lindeman, Henry Morgenthau Jr. Adolph A.Berle, I.M.

Rubinow (father of social insurance in America), and Paul Kellogg (editor of Survey magazine) also held leadership positions in federal programs.

Community Development

In the 1920s, Marcus Garvey, leader of the United Negro Improvement Association, advocated for Black community unity, a “back to Africa” migration of African Americans, and independence from White control through expansion of Black businesses and the creation of association cooperatives (Clay & Jones, 2009, p.6).

Black business development continued to be a central tenet of other groups such as the National Urban League and the Nation of Islam, established in the 1930s (Clay & Jones, 2009).

History and Context for Community Practice in North America 35 Community development during this period was not solely an urban phenomenon.

Originating in the South in the 1920s, the Cooperative Extension Service “continued to assist rural communities by means of a series of local clubs that joined with extension agents in developing and working out local programs [of community development] work” (Phifer, 1980).

Community clubs in African American communities continued to work on the principle of developing projects with people, rather than for people.

By 1923, more than 21,000 communities were engaged in cooperative extension community development projects at the grassroots level (Phifer, 1980).

During the Great Depression, the federal government expanded such community development efforts through several national initiatives.

A significant federal community development effort that affected both urban and rural communities was the Works Progress Administration, a massive work relief program of community betterment administered by social worker Harry Hopkins (1890-1946).

By 1936, the Works Progress Administration had put one third of unemployed Americans to work.

Hopkins also pioneered the development of the Civilian Conservation Corps, through which “young men whose families were on relief” were employed in improving parks and in community beautification projects (Compton, 1980, p.418).

One of the most famous community development projects of all time was the Tennessee Valley Authority (2011), which, although it displaced thousands of people, served as a landmark in improving the lives of rural communities through electrification and other projects.

Canadian Community Development In Canada, community economic development became a practical means for strengthening communities as part of the cooperative movement of the early 20th century.

Canadian cooperatives involved groups of people, often farmers, who joined together to share resources and information and pooled their produce to reduce costs, avoid needless competition, and cut out middlemen.

One university-sponsored community development effort was the Antigonish Cooperative Movement in Nova Scotia, Canada, assisted by St.Francis Xavier University.

Beginning in the 1930s, Xavier University provided training programs in community development, working within an adult education framework through group discussions aimed at identifying the causes of economic problems, empowering people, and encouraging them to organize for change.

Labor Organizing Union organizers in the United States were involved in many of the important social and political issues of the day.

They entered into the lives of workers, convincing them that their problems were not unique but, rather, connected with the problems of poor and exploited people everywhere.

They preached unity, solidarity, action, and reform at the community level.

In the early 1930s, more than 100 years of struggle at the local level paid off as the federal government passed two laws validating the rights of workers to engage in collective bargaining.

The Norris-LaGuardia Act of 1932 prohibited federal courts from issuing temporary or permanent injunctions in legitimate labor disputes, dealing a major blow to the efforts of management and owners of corporate enterprise (Estey, 1967).

Realizing they were losing the war, corporations put up a furious last-ditch effort.

In desperation, workers fought back.Between 1933 and 1934, wildcat strikes broke out in the auto, steel, rubber, and textile industries.In 1934, a general strike shut down the city of San Francisco.In that year alone, 40 workers were killed in strike-related violence, and between 1933 and 1935, troops were called out in 16 states.

Corporations stocked arsenals of weapons and spent hundreds of thousands of dollars spying on union activities (Ehrenreich, 1985).

Finally, in July 1935, Congress passed the National Labor Relations Act, making it illegal for employers to interfere in the exercise of a laborer’s right to organize, prohibiting unfair labor practices, and establishing a regulatory agency.

36 Community Organizing During the Great Depression, methods of social work community organizing that had been useful at the turn of the 20th century had much less salience.

As capitalism collapsed, one reform solution after another failed to halt the depression.On July 14, 1939, however, community leaders of the Back of the Yards Neighborhood Council, led by Saul Alinsky, held their first constitutional convention, attended by 350 delegates representing 109 local organizations.This effort launched Alinsky on a long career of organizing people in low-income urban communities around the United States (Stoecker, 2001).

This type of political activist neighborhood work represented a new approach to grassroots organizing efforts (Fisher, 1996).Alinsky’s model applied methods, strategies, and techniques developed by labor organizers to organize community members seeking justice.Both labor organizing and Alinsky-style organizing “used controlled conflict as their chief organizational tool” (Betten & Austin, 1990, p.152).

Although Alinsky was not the first to combine political activism with an emphasis on rebuilding a specific community, he has been considered the first to do it by bringing together groups of low-income people from several neighborhoods into a coalition, often challenging large corporations to obtain better wages and working conditions (Reitzes & Reitzes, 1987).

Alinsky wanted neighbors to understand that the real objective of community organizing was to build collective power so residents could run their own neighborhood and create the kind of community they wanted (Alinsky, 1974; Finks, 1984).

Social Activism

Although the social movements of the Progressive Era had accomplished a great deal, the period between the two world wars was characterized by political reaction in which social protest was cast in a negative light and social movements were attacked as subversive and threats to the conservative status quo.

FROM CONSERVATISM TO TUMULT (1940-1970)

The postwar boom and conservative 1950s were followed by a tumultuous period of protest from the late 1950s through the 1960s and into the 1970s.

During this decade, the United States experienced the most expansive use of community work strategies as a tool for social change in its history.

Community Planning President Kennedy created the Area Redevelopment Administration, which implemented community and area-wide projects requiring local committees of concerned citizens and government officials to create comprehensive economic development plans.

By the mid-1960s, Rural Area Development Committees were active in more than half the counties in the country (Phifer, 1980).

As a result of the Great Society programs initiated by President Johnson, community planning took a giant leap forward in the involvement of low-income community residents in solving their own problems.

The 1964 Economic Opportunity Act, federal and state Offices of Economic Opportunity and local Community Action Agencies improved public services, developed many community-based programs, mobilized community resources, placed citizens in decision-making groups, and guaranteed the involvement of low-income residents in planning decisions.

Promoting access to the planning process was a priority, and participation became the byword—codified as “maximum feasible participation” (Gittell, 1980).

The Demonstration Cities and Metropolitan Development Act of 1966, often called the Model Cities program, developed a concentrated and coordinated attack on the economic, social, and physical problems of selected slum neighborhoods; however, following considerable pressure from city political bases, it reemphasized the power of mayors and city councils and diminished the power of CommunityChapter 2 History and Context for Community Practice in North America 37 Action Agencies.

Still, community residents themselves were asked to provide information and ideas in planning new programs, participate on the boards that planned and administered them, and perform some of the jobs that traditionally had been held by professionals (Pine, 1986).

Community Planning 1968

Boards In 1968, the National Commission on Urban Problems appointed by President Johnson recommended the decentralization of municipal services to the neighborhood level.

New city charters authorized neighborhood planning councils in Honolulu, Pittsburgh, the District of Columbia, New York, and Newton, Massachusetts.City councils in Birmingham, St.Paul, Wichita, Anchorage, and Salem, Eugene, and Portland, Oregon, passed ordinances creating neighborhood planning councils or officially recognized existing neighborhood associations.

Following these advances, Congress passed a number of laws emphasizing the importance of planning.

The Partnership for Health Act and the Regional Planning Act of 1966 provided incentives and structures for the coordination of medical services and health planning with citizen input.

The Older Americans Act of 1965, the Comprehensive Employment and Training Act, and the National Health Planning and Resources Development Act “carved out roles for new quasi-public bodies to assume a planning, coordinating function on a municipal or regional basis” (Kurzman, 1985, p.100).

Community Development Between 1962 and 1965, at least 12 major disorders occurred in large metropolitan centers in the United States.

In 1965, racial unrest in Los Angeles was the worst that the nation had seen since 1943, when massive riots occurred in Detroit (Perry, 1987).

Community leaders understood that demonstrations and picketing, although effective in breaking the back of racial inequality, were not going to rebuild communities.

Across the nation, community members became aware that they needed to develop and control the economic institutions in their neighborhoods (Perry, 1987).

A decisive turning point in community development had occurred.

A number of different African American communities spontaneously invented a new social and economic tool: the community development corporation (CDC).

In 1966, inspired by Senator Robert F.Kennedy’s historic tour of the Bedford-Stuyvesant neighborhood in New York City, residents formed the nation’s first CDC, the Brooklyn-based Bed-Stuy Restoration Corporation (Stoecker, 2001).

This project was quickly followed by the establishment of the Woodlawn Organization in Chicago and, in 1968, the Hough area project in Cleveland.

Following in their footsteps, a first wave of about 100 CDCs emerged in such places as the North Avondale neighborhood in Cincinnati, the Hillside Terrace Housing Project in Milwaukee’s North Side, the Near Northwest Side of Chicago, the Mission District of San Francisco, the Lower East Side of New York City, and Newark, New Jersey (Fisher, 1996).

Community Organizing During and after World War II, despite the resistance to social change, disenfranchised and marginalized communities across the nation continued to seek out niches of opportunity, build on their successes, and press for social justice.In 1942, A.J.

Muste, James Farmer, and others founded the Congress for Racial Equality (CORE), an offshoot of the Quaker-sponsored Fellowship of Reconciliation, and began to use techniques of nonviolent direct action to fight racial discrimination at the University of Chicago.

In 1943, members of CORE used sit-in demonstrations to desegregate a Chicago restaurant, and, in April 1947, CORE and its allies sent African American and White freedom riders into the South to test compliance with federal court decisions on interstate bus routes, developing tactics that would later be used all over the South by civil rights activists.

At the same time, social workers continued to engage in grassroots neighborhood organizing in settlement houses and neighborhood centers.

Many social workers “studied neighborhood problems,38 helped organize block associations, neighborhood organizations, and tenant councils and got involved in social action” (Hallman, 1984, p.119).

Community Service Organizations While community organizing had little public impact during the 1940s (Fisher, 2005), in 1951 Fred Ross and, later, Cesar Chavez joined Alinsky in organizing Community Service Organizations (CSOs) in the Southwest and California.

CSOs offered English and citizenship classes to tens of thousands of Mexican Americans, an effort unparalleled in California history.

This development opened the doors for their effective citizen participation, while voter registration, leadership development, and educational programs sought to change existing discriminatory practices in the issuance of motor vehicle licenses, the determination of eligibility for welfare benefits, and police misconduct (Tjerandsen, 1980).

By 1960, the CSOs had registered an unprecedented 298,000 people to vote, making it possible for Mexican Americans to consider seriously running for office for the first time.

In 1960, 137,096 new registrants were recorded, bringing the total to more than 430,000 new voters (Tjerandsen, 1980).

One of the great contributions of the CSOs was their ability to transform the thinking of tens of thousands of people.

These individuals became aware not only of their rights as citizens but of their responsibility to work for the benefit of the community (Tjerandsen, 1980).

Industrial Areas Foundation

In the latter half of the 1950s, Alinsky’s Industrial Areas Foundation began sending organizers to other working-class neighborhoods in Northern industrial cities and to Kansas City and South St.

Paul in America’s heartland (Tjerandsen, 1980).

The Industrial Areas Foundation established the Chelsea Community Council, a coalition of 77 organizations, in 1957; the Citizens Federation of Lackawanna in New York in 1958; the Butte Citizens Project in Montana in 1959; PART I THE CONTEXT OF COMMUNITY PRACTICE and in that same year, the Organization for the Southwest Council in Chicago.

By 1963, both the Northwest Community Organization and the Woodlawn Organization in Chicago, one of the most famous and important of Alinsky’s organizations, were in operation (Williams, 1985).

Civil Rights Organizing Community organizing in the 1960s was best exemplified by many small local community organizations such as the Montgomery Improvement Association, which helped lead the famed Montgomery Bus Boycott that provided the impetus for what became a national civil rights movement (Stoecker, 2001).

The boycott was coordinated through local African American networks and organizations and created a model that would be used in locality-based actions throughout the South over the next 10 years.

During the 1960s, the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee organized African American communities and stimulated community action in the South to register voters and gain voting rights (Stoecker, 2001).

Community Action Agency Organizing

The Community Action Agencies (CAAs) created during the Johnson Administration added a new dimension to urban community organization.

They reflected an understanding of and commitment to the role of local citizens in their own neighborhoods.

For “civil rights organizations in poor black communities, CAAs presented an opening to get some real power to force changes in the community.the poor were to play a major role in both planning and directing the service they selected” (Ehrenreich, 1985, p.170).

In the end, however, urban mayors, agency executives, businessmen, and unions continued to hold the reins of power (Ehrenreich, 1985).

CAAs settled into the role of providing social service and community support programs.

Ultimately, 90% of the CAAs evolved into private nonprofit organizations; local governments continued to operate the rest (Hallman, 1984).

Chapter 2 History and Context for Community Practice in North America 39 Labor Organizing After the labor successes of the 1930s, an intransigent corporate sector continued to harass and intimidate workers.

As late as the 1960s, labor leaders were still being blacklisted for their political views and beaten for exercising their right to organize workers (Jedlicka, 1990).

During the economic expansion during and after World War II, union membership increased from 3.6 million to 13.9 million, in spite of continual pressure by corporate management to dilute or eliminate unions (Estey, 1967).However, other forces were also at work, the anticommunist McCarthyist hysteria across the nation resulted in the purge of labor unions from the late 1930s to 1960s, including unions of social workers.

Grassroots labor organizing also took new forms.On September 8, 1965, for example, the Agricultural Workers Organizing Committee (AWOC), led by Larry Itliong, struck the Delano, California, table grape growers.

Almost overnight, Cesar Chavez’s National Farm Workers Association (NFWA) transformed itself from a workers’ rights organization into a union of farmworkers and voted to join the strike (Estey, 1967).

On August 22, 1966, shortly after Chavez led a 300-mile pilgrimage from Delano to the California state capitol, Sacramento, AWOC and NFWA merged to form the United Farm Workers Organizing Committee, AFL-CIO, eventually becoming the United Farm Workers of America.

The United Farm Workers launched membership drives, engaged in picketing and marches, organized national boycotts of grapes and lettuce, and launched media campaigns.

It also obtained critical support from political figures.After 5 years of struggle, these tactics, in conjunction with intensive negotiations, finally produced a contract with the major grape growers in California.

Community-Based Social Activism Although the late 1940s to mid-1950s was a period of relative calm, the seeds of radical protest were being planted by the very social policies intended to provide stability and prosperity.

Government housing policies, for example, promised but did not deliver an adequate supply of affordable housing.

The government’s reluctance to fund mass transit for inner-city dwellers while providing huge subsidies for highway construction and for the oil and automotive industries contributed to urban decline and raised people’s consciousness of how government policies favored one group while disadvantaging another.

By the late 1950s, an almost simultaneous decision was made on college campuses, in Black neighborhoods, in Mexican American barrios, and in communities of single mothers on welfare that enough was enough.

The period between 1955 and 1969 was a watershed in the history of U.S.social movements.

Many local community organizations were incorporated into the burgeoning movement for civil rights, including the Congress of Racial Equality; the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, guided by Martin Luther King, Jr.; the National Urban League, with social worker Whitney Young at the helm; and the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee, led by James Foreman.

Other influential movements included the National Welfare Rights Organization, founded by George Wiley and Johnnie Tillmon; protest movements against the war in Vietnam; student “free speech” protest movements; and the National Organization for Women and other women’s rights organizations emerging from the second wave of feminism.

Many of these movements produced positive political results.

Grassroots activism led to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and shifted the culture of the nation toward greater acceptance of African Americans, Latinos, Asian Americans, and Native Americans as full-fledged citizens.

The Voting Rights Act of 1965 enormously expanded the ability of African Americans and other ethnic minorities to participate in the political process.

Grassroots organizations also played a major role in ending the war in Vietnam.

Community-Based Social Programs The Kennedy and Johnson Administrations created more than 1,000 federal programs, many of which were aimed at community improvement40 (Phifer, 1980).

The Economic Opportunity Act, for example, initiated a series of programs at the community level that provided training and career development for young people, including the Neighborhood Youth Corps for jobless teenagers; the Job Corps program for school dropouts; the New Careers programs for paraprofessionals; college work-study programs; and Volunteers in Service to America, a domestic version of the Peace Corps.

Community Action Programs attempted to engage community residents directly in the development of locally based programs.

They funded innercity projects of public and private agencies, including neighborhood health centers; Operation Head Start, a preschool education project for children; Upward Bound, a program encouraging slum children to go to college; Neighborhood Legal Services; Adult Basic Educational Services; family planning programs; and addiction services.

Community action agencies provided “advocacy for welfare recipients, establishment of day care and health care, and pressured welfare, public housing and other agencies to respond more effectively and equitably to the poor” (Compton, 1980, p.460).

ROLE OF COMMUNITY IN THE EMERGING POSTMODERN ERA (1970-2010)

According to Peter Drucker (1989), “Sometime between 1965 and 1973, we passed over a divide and entered the ‘next century.

‘ We are in political terra incognita with few landmarks to guide us” (pp.3-4).

Members of the modern North American civilization, whether or not they are fully aware of it, are living in a transition period between the modern world, which is passing away but is still much with us, and the new postmodern era, the outlines of which remain to be fashioned (Brueggemann, 2006).

One of the features of this postmodern era is the increasing importance of community as a structure and tool of society building.

Community Planning Many federal programs available during the 1970s required communities to develop comprehensive PART I THE CONTEXT OF COMMUNITY PRACTICE plans to qualify for federal funding.

A number of cities, including New York, Washington, D.C., Baltimore, and Dayton, Ohio, set up neighborhood planning councils—defined as broad-based organizations of residents, usually elected—on matters affecting their neighborhoods (Hallman, 1984).

The Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, amended by President Carter, required citizen involvement in planning, execution, and evaluation.As a result, “new community organizations were stimulated and became agents for citizen participation in the local community” (Fairbanks, 1986, p.81).

By the late 1970s, neighbors were becoming active participants in planning their own communities in nearly every large city in the United States and increasingly in medium and smaller ones as well.

Community Planning in the 1980s and 1990s Community planning sponsored by local city governments continued through the 1980s and in the last decade of the 20th century.

Many active, egalitarian, socially oriented, and inclusive planning efforts occurred in the United States during this period.

Members of community-based organizations began to propose changes in city ordinances, zoning laws, or new laws governing the allocation of city services, and demanded the establishment of watchdog commissions with the authority to investigate police brutality, discrimination, and human rights violations.

In the first decade of the 21st century, several major private philanthropic foundations and city governments launched pilot projects to test the effectiveness of a comprehensive approach to community that included community planning, community development, advocacy, and service provision.

They represented a new wave of corporate and community partnerships in which federal, state, and local governments cooperated with local planning groups by providing funding and support to address neighborhood needs at the grassroots level (Smock, 1997).

Community Organizing During the 1970s some community organizations won significant victories at the local level and began to pursue larger, national goals.

For example, fought for and won passage of 14 pieces of national legislation, including the 518(b) HUD payback program, which returned money to Federal Housing Administration homeowners when they were defrauded by unscrupulous realtors and mortgage bankers.

NPA also gained passage of the Federal Home Mortgage Disclosure Act of 1975, one of the most important tools for uncovering redlining practices, and the powerful Community Reinvestment Act of 1977, which resulted in more than $100 billion being invested in urban neighborhoods (Hallman, 1984).

By 1981, the number of national training centers, national support networks, and associations of community organizations had expanded to two dozen (Hallman, 1984), including the Direct Action and Research Training Center, the Gamaliel Foundation, the Industrial Areas Foundation, and the Pacific Institute of Community Organizing (Hallman, 1984).

By 1985, 300 newsletters and periodicals existed that focused extensively on community organizations (Williams, 1985).

During the 1990s and into the 21st century, many community organizing efforts were led by faith-based groups, and they focused on a great diversity of issues.

During the past two decades, community organizing experienced an explosion of small efforts.

Consequently, it has become a more widespread strategy and has had more impact than ever (Stoecker, 2001).

NPA, for example, made important contributions to the passage of the 1990 Americans with Disabilities Act.

In Chicago and other cities across the nation, community organizations have identified problems, developed strategies, and engaged in advocacy with police departments, youth service agencies, the criminal justice system, school systems, park districts, property owners, and others, clearly cementing community organizing as a central and recognized means of using the power of local communities (Hertz, 2002).

Community Development Community organizations that stimulated the Civil Rights Movement evolved into CDCs in cities such as Birmingham, Chicago, New York, Phoenix, Oakland, Stockton, San Diego, Cleveland, and Wichita.

Peirce and Steinbach (1990) observe: “CDCs in the 1970s saw a tenfold increase in efforts that began as community residents opposed urban renewal, redlining, factory closings, or irresponsible landlords who abused tenant rights” (p.15).

Many CDCs created partnerships with foundations such as the Ford Foundation’s Grey Areas Program (Redman-Rengstorf, 1986).

By the late 1970s, CDCs had become central components of federally assisted neighborhood development programs.

In 1977, Congress passed the National Neighborhood Policy Act, which created the National Commission on Neighborhoods to investigate the state of the nation’s neighborhoods.By 1980, more than a dozen federal programs provided support for local staff and projects.

Although CDCs that developed during the privatization campaigns of the Reagan years (1981-1989) experienced dramatic cutbacks in government funding, their number increased to nearly 2,000 organizations and continued to grow in the 1990s (Stoecker, 2001).

They responded to funding cuts by becoming much more businesslike than their predecessors, exhibiting management “talent and development skills once thought to be the exclusive province of the for-profit sector” (Fisher, 1996, p.39).

CDC Revolution of the 1990s

In the 1990s, a new generation of neighborhood initiatives began to emerge within the context of a growing national consensus about the importance of re building communities (Smock, 1997).

According to Williamson, “By the 1990s most people engaged in community development were recognizing that the effective revitalization of deprived areas required CDC/public/private/intermediary partnerships or a ‘four-legged stool'” (Williamson, 1997, p.3).

CDCs were increasingly able to attract lowinterest loans, loan guarantees, and other financial assistance from private financial institutions, and particularly from banks (Walker, 2002).By early 1993, well over 3,000 CDCs existed in the United States.

Five years later, according to a national42 census of CDCs conducted by the National Congress of Community Economic Development, their numbers had grown to 3,600, with more in Canada (Owens, 2000).

Government/Private-Sector Collaboration.

The most important development for CDCs during the 1990s was the establishment of many intermediary support organizations.

Governments, financial institutions, and philanthropic organizations came together to create new collaborative bodies to mobilize money.

The Community Revitalization Act of the 1990s spurred bank investment in poor neighborhoods and in CDCs.The U.S.

Treasury initiated the Community Development Financial Institutions fund, providing community loans, banking services, and financed real estate development dedicated to the revitalization of low-income neighborhoods.

The evolution of federal initiatives such as the Community Development Block Grant and the Department of Housing and Urban Development’s HOME program enabled many CDCs to become successful at improving their communities by building sustainable assets.

As a result, the total value of CDC projects receiving support from intermediaries doubled between 1991 and 2000, and the overall size of CDC industries grew as well (Walker, 2002).

First Decade of the 21st Century

During the past decade, the attention CDCs received from government, private funders, and the network of supportive intermediary coalitions continued to expand.

The Community Development Society, the first national professional association of community developers and citizens, appeared, and by 2002 more than 4,600 CDCs had organized into statewide, regional, and national associations in the United States and Canada (Walker, 2002).

In the second half of the decade, an emphasis on sustainable community development appeared, which focused on the whole community instead of just disadvantaged neighborhoods and sought to improve public health and provide a better quality of life for all residents.

Sustainable community PART I THE CONTEXT OF COMMUNITY PRACTICE development initiatives included limiting waste, preventing pollution, maximizing conservation and promoting energy efficiency, and developing local resources to revitalize the local economy (Bridger & Luloff, n.d.).

Community-Based Social Organizations

Today, community social workers are engaging in a revolution in their thinking, in their relationship to government, and in the way they understand the social world.

At the center of this revolution is the rise of new community-based social organizations (Hall, 1994).

Salamon and Sokolowski (2004) argue that “a ‘global associational revolution’ is underway around the world, a massive upsurge of organized private, voluntary activity in virtually every corner of the globe” (p.3).

These organizations’ unique position outside the market and the state, along with their generally smaller scale, stronger connection to residents, support of public purposes, and newly rediscovered contributions to building social capital, makes them strategically important participants in the current search for a “middle way” between reliance on the market or on the state (Salamon & Sokolowski, 2004).

New Federal Partnerships

The federal government has emerged as a partner with social organizations, turning to a host of new organizational and procedural forms to carry out its responsibilities instead of expanding the federal bureaucracy.

These arrangements are so extensive that the United States government now relies more heavily on nonprofit social organizations than on its own agencies to deliver government-funded human services.

Social organizations are now a third party to government (Salamon, 1995).

The result is a diverse and varied set of institutions connected to government at all levels through a rich network of interactions that differ markedly from place to place in response to local circumstances, traditions, and needs (Salamon, 1995).

In fact, in economic terms,Chapter 2 History and Context for Community Practice in North America 43 the nonprofit social sector in some localities equals or surpasses the role played by local governments.

For example, in the Twin Cities area of Minnesota, expenditures of the local nonprofit sector are as large as the combined budgets of Minneapolis, St.

Paul, Hennepin, and Ramsey counties.

Cooperation between government and the voluntary social sector is now a central financial fact of life and has become the backbone of this country’s human services delivery system (Salamon, 1995).

International Social Organizations

Pitted against the hegemony of the global market system, social organizations are becoming a strong force internationally (Salamon, 1995).

With a collective membership of hundreds of millions of people, social organizations comprise literally hundreds of thousands of grassroots organizations that exist in every nation on the planet (Vandenakker, 1994).

Myriad grassroots organizations are evolving into larger nongovernmental organizations, the equivalent of American nonprofit social organizations, transnational nongovernmental organizations, and nongovernmental support organizations (Durning, 1989).

New Social Movements

In recent years, community-based social activists have made significant progress ending pollution and creating an ecologically sustainable environment.

Activists have protested the Iraq War and the arms race and continued efforts to achieve world peace.

The establishment of international women’s rights has become an issue in many nations, and indigenous peoples throughout the world have been active in challenging the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund and the hegemony of the global free market (Dreier, 1996).

The cumulative effect of direct political action by these new social movements has begun to change the political climate in many impoverished nations (Camacho, 1993).

Voluntary associations in urban areas in Africa have promoted social change by spearheading struggles for independence.

New democracy movements and people’s struggles in the Philippines, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and some Latin American countries have been dramatic responses to repressive regimes and military dictatorships.

By 1991, political reform in 25 countries in Asia, Africa, and Latin America allowed for wide voter participation in free elections with multiple candidates (Dumtra, 1991-1992).

In 2011, these same impulses have spurred the “Arab Spring,” producing revolutionary and reform movements in 17 nations, including Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, and Syria.

The protests have utilized techniques of civil resistance learned over the past two centuries, including strikes, demonstrations, marches, and rallies.

Activists have also used social media effectively to raise awareness in the face of state attempts at repression and Internet censorship.

EMERGING ISSUES FOR COMMUNITY PRACTICE

While community social work practice today engages a relatively small percentage of National Association of Social Workers members in the United States, the concept of community is crucial to the development of effective and sustainable responses to the growing changes our society is experiencing.

In the future, community social work practice will be challenged to develop alternative ways of helping people cope with an increasingly impersonal and complex society.

In addition, as society becomes increasingly urban, more attention will need to be paid to rural community planning and community development.

Community social work practice will also be challenged to integrate concerns about the environment and sustainability as well as problems caused by the hegemony of the global market system on the quality of human life.

Recently, social organizations have expanded to include not only traditional social agencies but social intermediaries, social advocacy groups, and new social enterprise organizations.

Moreover, although few social workers currently engage in this form of advanced practice, the field of organizational social work has also expanded to include44 social administration and social organization building, as well as organizational development aimed at improving the social health and effectiveness of organizations.

Societal social work has moved more assertively into social betterment, including social policy advocacy and the use of both modern and postmodern social movements to bring about social change.

International social work is becoming an increasingly important field of practice in our global market society.

Macro social work is a firmly established field in the profession of social work and is seeing increased utility and sophistication of its practice modalities.

In the years ahead, the profession of social work needs to place much more emphasis on community practice, helping generate stimulating job opportunities and new community-based governmental partnerships.

R E F E R E N C E S

Abramovitz, M. (1999). Regulating the lives of women:
Social welfare policy from colonial times to the present (Rev. ed.). Boston: South End Press.
Addams, J. (1938). Twenty years at Hull House. New
York: New American Library.
Alinsky, S. (1974). Rules for radicals: A pragmatic primer
for realistic radicals. New York: Vintage Books.
Betten, N., & Austin, M. J. (1990). The roots of community organizing, 1917-1939. Philadelphia: Temple
University Press.
Bliss, W. (Ed.). (1897). Encyclopedia of social reform.
New York: Funk and Wagnalls.
Bridger, J. C., &C Luloff, A. E. (n.d.). Sustainable community development: An interactional perspective.
Retrieved from nercrd.psu.edu/community/legacy/
bridger_community.html
Brilliant, E. L. (2005). From community planning to
changing communities: Fundraising and fund alloca
tion for human services. In M. Weil (Ed.), The handbook of community practice (pp. 244-257). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage

Muzammil Ijaz

Blogger By Passion, Programmer By Love And SEO Expert By Birth.This Quote Explain Me Perfectly. I did Bachelor’s in social work from the University of Sargodha