In a previous blog entitled ‘Community Engagement’ I concluded by stating ‘Owning and controlling the means of production and distribution of your own identifiable needs has to be a core priority for communities if they are to survive in diminishing resource environment.’ The intent behind this statement is to begin to unpack the uncomfortable truth behind my statement. In a time of uncertainty, diminishing resources, and on-going changes within the social and cultural infrastructure, how can communities take a more active role in not only determining their own needs, but actually bring those aspirations to fruition? David Miller of the Urban Youth Institute has repeatedly challenged me in this area, emphasizing that the development of an autonomous model, rooted within both a community and business model. The emphasis here is on the word model. Most of what I’ve experienced in my life has been addressing and responding to models of practice, ideas, development, etc that have previously existed. Seldom has there been space, time, resources to consider the design, development, implementation of a contemporary approach to this issue.
Having attended the Johns Hopkins Centre for Teen violence prevention and read its core objectives, I’m convinced that there is the possibility of framing a model that could with the right strategy could bring some different results to the way communities are currently served in the UK. In deed the recent Government’s position on wanting to enable communities to take more of an active role in shaping their needs provides less of a challenge, but more of an opportunity, if cutbacks in central and local Government provision is going to diminish.
As I have seen here many communities can with the right model be more in control of their own destiny. In the case of Johns Hopkins there is a definite commitment for the University to work with communities, leaders, public bodies, and so on, to encourage wider participation in local democracy, and to quote ‘mobilise residents, and researchers to craft effective solutions for violence prevention tailored to suit their specific needs’. It is my view and passion to extend that objective, by presenting an adapted version. I do feel that Universities have a responsibility to play an objective coordinating role in terms of providing steer on community need. However, the weakness of that position is rooted in the historical legacy of disconnectedness that Universities have with communities. It is also evident that communities who have been researched on and not with for many years, have a healthy skepticism about University need to engage communities outside of their own research agenda. The politics of social and cultural change would also suggest that liberal university departments are still at the mercy of political decisions that can restrict their involvement within the community.
In today’s evidence based culture public services can place an enormous burden on community services that may not be geared up to deliver programmes alongside conducting the kind of critical evaluations required to justify their funding. It is also true that University departments who can provide the evidence are also not ideally placed to deliver the outcomes of their investigations. What is clear is ‘gathering, understanding, and interpreting’ data for the purpose of improving, changing, or challenging the status quo is an important process, as part of social and cultural change. As the Director of the Johns Hopkin’s Centre for the Prevention of Youth Violence reminds me “One thing is to know what to do, the thing is to know how to do it”.
What is aso required is to create the time to consult with the community, edit accordingly, and then build some structure around the framework? A community activist in Baltimore encouraged me to not just think outside the box, but dare to be different in terms of auctioning any ideas I come up with. One day I hope to prove him right.
Peace
No comments:
Post a Comment