The Wellconnected Community A Networking Approach To Community Development Alison Gilchrist

The Wellconnected Community A Networking
Approach To Community Development Alison
Gilchrist download
https://ebookbell.com/product/the-wellconnected-community-a-
networking-approach-to-community-development-alison-
gilchrist-51808386
Explore and download more ebooks at ebookbell.com

Here are some recommended products that we believe you will be
interested in. You can click the link to download.
The Wellconnected Community A Networking Approach To Community
Development 2nd Edition 2nd Edition Alison Gilchrist
https://ebookbell.com/product/the-wellconnected-community-a-
networking-approach-to-community-development-2nd-edition-2nd-edition-
alison-gilchrist-2390504
Halliburtons Army How A Wellconnected Texas Oil Company Revolutionized
The Way America Makes War 2009 1st Edition Pratap Chatterjee
https://ebookbell.com/product/halliburtons-army-how-a-wellconnected-
texas-oil-company-revolutionized-the-way-america-makes-war-2009-1st-
edition-pratap-chatterjee-2188936
Halliburtons Army How A Wellconnected Texas Oil Company Revolutionized
The Way America Makes War Pratap Chatterjee
https://ebookbell.com/product/halliburtons-army-how-a-wellconnected-
texas-oil-company-revolutionized-the-way-america-makes-war-pratap-
chatterjee-34491134
Only A Lyon Will Do The Lyons Den Connected World Sherry Ewing
https://ebookbell.com/product/only-a-lyon-will-do-the-lyons-den-
connected-world-sherry-ewing-60683436

Only A Lyon Will Do The Lyons Den Connected World Sherry Ewing
https://ebookbell.com/product/only-a-lyon-will-do-the-lyons-den-
connected-world-sherry-ewing-60732168
Practical Internet Of Things Security A Practical Indispensable
Security Guide That Will Navigate You Through The Complex Realm Of
Securely Building And Deploying Systems In Our Iotconnected World
Russell
https://ebookbell.com/product/practical-internet-of-things-security-a-
practical-indispensable-security-guide-that-will-navigate-you-through-
the-complex-realm-of-securely-building-and-deploying-systems-in-our-
iotconnected-world-russell-11861448
The Wellgrounded Data Analyst 1 Converted David Asboth
https://ebookbell.com/product/the-wellgrounded-data-
analyst-1-converted-david-asboth-231679396
The Science Of Wellbeing The Collected Works Of Ed Diener 1st Edition
Ed Diener Auth
https://ebookbell.com/product/the-science-of-wellbeing-the-collected-
works-of-ed-diener-1st-edition-ed-diener-auth-2540702
Assessing Wellbeing The Collected Works Of Ed Diener 1st Edition Ed
Diener Auth
https://ebookbell.com/product/assessing-wellbeing-the-collected-works-
of-ed-diener-1st-edition-ed-diener-auth-11845560

THE WELL-CONNECTED
COMMUNITY
A Networking Approach
to Community Development
Third edition
Alison Gilchrist

First published in Great Britain in 2019 by
Policy Press North America office:
University of Bristol Policy Press
1-9 Old Park Hill c/o The University of Chicago Press
Bristol 1427 East 60th Street
BS2 8BB Chicago, IL 60637, USA
UK t: +1 773 702 7700
t: +44 (0)117 954 5940 f: +1 773-702-9756
pp-info@bristol.ac.uk sales@press.uchicago.edu
www.policypress.co.uk www.press.uchicago.edu
© Policy Press 2019
British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data
A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
A catalog record for this book has been requested
978-1-4473-4779-8 paperback
978-1-4473-4780-4 ePub
978-1-4473-4788-0 ePDF
The right of Alison Gilchrist to be identified as author of this work has been asserted by her
in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.
All rights reserved: no part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system,
or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording,
or otherwise without the prior permission of Policy Press.
The statements and opinions contained within this publication are solely those of the author
and not of the University of Bristol or Policy Press. The University of Bristol and Policy
Press disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any material
published in this publication.
Policy Press works to counter discrimination on grounds of gender, race,
disability, age and sexuality.
Cover design by Andrew Corbett
Front cover image: Launch of summer youth activities. Thanks to Tonge
with the Haulgh Big Local (Bolton, UK).
Printed and bound in Great Britain by CMP, Poole
Policy Press uses environmentally responsible print partners

This edition is dedicated to my mother,
Toonkey Gilchrist (1927–2017), who encouraged
and inspired my interest in networking.

v
Contents
List of tables, figures and boxes vi
Preface to the third edition vii
Acknowledgements xiii
Structure of the book xiv
1 Community connections: value and meaning 1
2 Community networks and policy dimensions 15
3 Community development: principles and practice 33
4 Working with communities: different approaches 49
5 Networks: form and features 77
6 Network functions 93
7 Networking principles and practices 113
8 Networking for community development 127
9 Complexity and the well-connected community 151
10 Issues and implications 169
11 Developing the well-connected community 195
Suggested further reading 211
References 213
Index 267

vi
List of tables, figures and boxes
Tables
3.1 Models of community development 36
5.1 Key differences between networks and organisations 85
7.1 Networking qualities 117
9.1 Spectrum of complex social systems 159
11.1 Summary of key recommendations 198
Figure
5.1 Diagrammatic representation of a network 79
Boxes
1.1 Participatory city 11
2.1 Awra Amba village 18
2.2 Sociable soup kitchen: Laib und Seele 24
4.1 Geluksdisco, Amsterdam 55
4.2 Mendip health connectors 61
4.3 WEvolution micro-loans 63
6.1 FEMNET: Africa women networking for empowerment 104
6.2 Places of welcome 108
8.1 Sunny Govan 130
9.1 Unity Streets, Birmingham 164
10.1 Chatty cafes 173
10.2 Grapevine Revaluation 188
10.3 Vibe & Tone 190

vii
Preface to the third edition
’Tis true, there’s magic in the web of it.
(Shakespeare, Othello, Act 3, scene 4)
This book is about the value of connections and the work that is
done to establish and maintain them. In the 15 years since the first
edition, networking is significantly more commonplace, deliberate
and computer mediated. It is now firmly acknowledged as essential to
effective community development work. But the organisational and
demographic environment in which community workers and activists
operate is becoming increasingly dynamic, complex and diverse.
Practitioners need to be ever more agile in working across boundaries.
In a constantly changing and interacting world, uncertainty requires
individuals and society to be more ‘elastic’by ‘letting go of comfortable
ideas and become more accustomed to ambiguity and contradiction’
(Mlodinow, 2018). Networking can help us to find this capacity in
ourselves and with others.
Being ‘well connected’ is recognised as a source of strength.
However, we have more to learn about the emotional ramifications
and attitudes that can nourish or corrode connections. It takes both
time and trust to build loving and respectful relationships. This applies
equally to the development of community links and the informal
arrangements that underpin cooperation across the public, private,
voluntary and community sectors.
The past ten years since 2009 have given us a deeper and more
sophisticated understanding of networks: their impact in people’s lives
and their contribution to society. The ‘praxis’ of networking is also
more fully acknowledged, with an explicit emphasis on the need for
reciprocity (Offer, 2012) and the value of courteous hospitality. As
the latest research on empowering communities asserts, ‘We are social
beings and the connections we make with each other help us to realise
our potential and power’(Baker and Taylor, 2018, p 35). The value of
networking for developing strong and active communities is recognised
now more than ever.
The theories and evidence offered in this book are rooted in
research but draw heavily on phronetic knowledge: knowledge that
is derived from practice and experience. The ideas have been distilled
from personal reflections, action research, workshops, informal
conversations, government reports and the academic literature. They

The Well-Connected Community
viii
are applicable to policy and practice, as well as intended to encourage
critical reflection using the questions posed at the end of each chapter.
The significance of informal interactions and interpersonal
networks for community life has been understood for decades. The
earliest research in sociology and ethnography identified patterns
of cooperation and communication that are characteristic of most
societies (Sennett, 2012). The usual connotation of ‘community’
as a ‘warm’ and fuzzy concept must, however, be tempered by
acknowledging that most communities harbour rivalries and internal
schisms between different factions and interest groups. These are
focused on different social identities and political ideologies. They may
also reflect inequalities of various kinds, as well as mutual antipathies.
The informal and serendipitous nature of networks has gained
prominence (Gilchrist, 2016), while evidence has accumulated to add
to our awareness that ‘it’s not what you know, but who you know’
in opening up opportunities, accessing resources and maintaining
‘liveable lives’(Anderson et al, 2015). My doctoral research (Gilchrist,
2001) represented an early attempt to validate and make visible the
networking skills and strategies used by people who work effectively
with communities. Since then, there has been widespread recognition
that lateral, often boundary-spanning, connections brokered and
nurtured by intermediaries and community connectors are essential
features of network governance models, partnership working and
different forms of community development.
Loose networks, based on trust and shared norms, that bond groups
together and bridge across sectoral and community boundaries enable
valuable and fairly reliable exchanges and interactions that do not
require costly or time-consuming organisational structures. In the past
ten years or so, since 2010, there has been rising concern that society is
becoming more fragmented, resulting in social isolation and mounting
tensions between diverse groups.
There is now an explicit acknowledgement of the value of
relationships for individuals’wellbeing as well as for the wider society.
A relatively new term, ‘community capital’, has been coined, and
developed through research, to underscore the shared nature of
this asset. Collective dividends are reported for ‘well-connected
communities’in terms of community resilience, active citizenship and
economic engagement. Funders have designed networking into their
‘offer’, allocating time and resources to encourage residents from the
targeted areas to meet and share experiences, thus enhancing cross-
community learning and peer support. Similarly, the training provided
for community organisers’ programmes places great emphasis on the

ix
organiser’s role in facilitating and maintaining community networks for
social change, building on the work of Anklam (2007), Vandeventer
and Mandell (2007), Holley (2012) and Plastrik et al (2014).
While networks tend to be favourably viewed as vehicles for
mobilising and sharing information, they can be exclusive and
have their downsides regarding the abuse of power. This has been
accentuated by insights into the sometimes detrimental effects of social
media. We have a better understanding of how these webs of mutual
influence and peer-to-peer communication propagate damaging
effects of peer pressure and perpetuate unconscious biases through
algorithmic processes that create ‘echo chambers’ of opinion. For
this reason, it is vital to understand how networks are deliberately
nurtured to encourage mutual relations and useful boundary-spanning
connections, especially those that challenge discrimination and power
differentials.
This facet of working with communities is the primary focus of
this book. Networking has received increasing recognition as a vital
aspect of community development practice, although it has sometimes
been disparaged as overly transactional and self-interested. Creating
common ground for collaboration and effective communication is
regarded as involving a valuable set of capabilities for working across
various kinds of edges and divides. It involves appreciating different
perspectives and synthesising a range of ideas and interests as well as
challenging oppressive and out-dated attitudes.
The growing interest in co-production and network governance as
models for joint working between service providers and community
members recognises the intangible value of the connections between
participants and practitioners (Boyle et al, 2011; Durose and
Richardson, 2015). There is therefore a need to invest in and nurture
these by taking time to establish good relations, build rapport and avoid
‘netsploitation’ (Davies and Spicer, 2015).
Diversity and economic inequalities affect local communities,
reducing a shared sense of belonging and creating competing equality
claims and new intersected forms of social and ethnic identity
(Afridi and Warmington, 2009; Hill-Collins, 2009; Hirsch, 2018).
Many traditions and older versions of solidarity have withered away,
undermining cohesion in some places and altering how people connect
with work colleagues and neighbours. Communities are deemed to
be more fractured, with social isolation and loneliness regarded as
growing problems (Jopling, 2017). Associated mental health difficulties
have given rise to befriending schemes and activities-based projects.
A pioneering approach has been trialled by several local authorities

x
using social impact bonds and social prescribing to invest in various
programmes for improving the connectedness of older people and
people suffering from various life-limiting conditions (Kimberlee,
2016).
The practices and habits of connecting have been dissected and
promoted as essential to effective and sustainable community work
in a variety of circumstances. While noting caveats and drawbacks,
Russell (2015) argued for strategies that foster, but do not abuse or
exploit, personal connections. Hobsbawm (2017) has warned against
hyper-connectivity. Too much time spent online, dealing with cyber-
relations and managing one’s social media profile and content, lowers
the frequency of face-to-face interactions and diminishes the scope
for consolidating real-world relationships.
At the same time social infrastructure has deteriorated, with a loss of
communal spaces and community hubs due to closure or marketisation
(Hastings et al, 2015; Price, 2015; Soteri-Proctor, 2017). Nonetheless,
grassroots initiatives continue to spring up, although they increasingly
depend on purely voluntary effort rather than funded community
development support (Scott, 2010).
The field of social network analysis has benefited considerably from
the development of software designed to trace patterns of connection,
communication and cooperation, for example within civil society,
organisational ecosystems or neighbourhoods. It is likely that ever
more sophisticated programmes will reveal significant correlations
and links that will enhance our knowledge of the benefits and the
hazards associated with ‘well-connected communities’. Those of us
who work with communities can be more committed, but perhaps
more circumspect, in how we encourage networking.
In Britain community development has to some extent been
marginalised or co-opted as a means for public authorities to engage
with communities and encourage voluntary effort in the delivery
of services, resulting in a delicate balancing act between state
responsibilities and community interests. This has proved a mixed
blessing. In many ways it has highlighted the role of community
practitioners, those who work at the interface between statutory bodies
and citizens, in ensuring that the users of services can be involved in
decision making and the co-production of agreed outcomes. On the
other hand, it has led to a practice often lacking an understanding
of power and devoid of any recognition that community voices may
legitimately oppose as well as support more powerful interests.
However, the rise of outsourced contracting and the decline of
generic community development and the large-scale disappearance

xi
of core-funding for voluntary sector infrastructure organisations have
restricted collaboration and liaison at local levels. Many organisations,
especially the well-established national charities, became ensnared
in this agenda, leading to a divergence across a spectrum ranging
from large, hierarchical organisations through to precariously funded
community groups (Milbourne, 2013; Rochester, 2013; Deakin,
2014). Some writers have argued that a hybrid model of organisation
has evolved, neither private nor voluntary, but incorporating elements
from each (Billis, 2010).
This has made it more difficult to nurture interpersonal and
community links. Economic strategies driven by neoliberalism and
austerity policies have led to dramatic cuts in government spending,
stimulating a search for alternative means of maintaining public services
and community facilities, for example through self-help, third sector
commissioning, volunteering and social action (Rees and Mullins,
2017; Lindsey and Mohan, 2019).
This third edition has been updated to reflect developments
in government thinking in the UK and the impact of austerity
cuts. Recent years have witnessed a decline in the use of the term
‘community development’, accompanied by a reduction in the
number of fieldwork professionals and the availability of training and
support for activists and practitioners (ESB, 2017). A variety of types
and models of community work have emerged, notably community
organising, and there has been a renewed emphasis on strengths-based
or asset-based approaches. Accelerating globalisation has led to added
social pressures and opportunities for learning from the global South.
For those living in the UK, neoliberal economic strategies and the
impact of the Brexit referendum have sharpened tensions between
different ethnic groups and classes. This is having a disproportionate
impact on those already disadvantaged in the economic and welfare
system, exacerbating already soaring levels of disaffection, poverty and
inequality (Clark and Heath, 2014; Alston, 2018; Civil Society Futures,
2018). Despite impressive dedication from many small charities and
faith-based organisations, these hard times have badly undermined
social relations and disrupted community networks (Lawrence and
Lim, 2015). The very concept of ‘community life’has been challenged
(Elgenius, 2018, p 55). However, it seems that people are redesigning
communities in ways that are less local and less formal, reconfiguring
their relationships around joint interests and new modes of socialising.
These may be looser but are just as significant, with mutual affinity and
convenience rather than proximity and necessity becoming the basis

xii
for creating ‘hidden solidarities’using a variety of social identities and
connective technologies (Lawrence, 2018, p 240).
I hope that this third edition reflects these insights and experiences. It
has been substantially updated to take account of recent developments
in theory, policy and practice. It affirms the continuing importance
of networking for community development and the need for this to
be grounded in core values of equality, empathy and empowerment.
The fundamental purpose and structure of the book has not changed:
my main argument remains that effective and inclusive networking is
skilled, strategic and often serendipitous.

xiii
Acknowledgements
I am grateful to numerous colleagues throughout my working life as
a community worker who have stimulated my thinking and offered
interesting examples from practice. I owe special appreciation to
Mandy Wilson and Kevin Harris for their assistance with this edition.
Many thanks are given to Ken Taylor and Nigel Coe for proofreading.
Others include Kim Adams from Easton Community Association,
along with Jenny Fisher and Catriona May at the Community
Development Foundation (CDF), who provided valuable support,
critiques and encouragement.
Most recently, the backing from colleagues, notably Catherine
Durose, of INLOGOV at the University of Birmingham, along with
a small grant, have proved invaluable in enabling me to finish this
third edition.
Members of the Panel Study (1996–98): Frances Brown, Teri Dolan,
Pete Hulse, Caroline Kay, Linda McMann, Susan Moores, Anne
Pendleton, Gary Smith, Greg Smith, Keib Thomas, Chris Trueblood,
and Mike Waite.
Bristol Festival Against Racism: Lil Bowers, Lindy Clifton, Peter
Courtier, Rosetta Eligon, Mike Graham, Steve Graham, Minoo Jalali,
Richard Jewison, Jane Kilpatrick, Batook Pandya, Ray Safia and Balraj
Sandhu.

xiv
Structure of the book
Chapter 1 begins with an examination of what we mean by the
term ‘community’ and considers various models developed to
understand different experiences. The section on social capital has
been considerably expanded to include a consideration of collective
efficacy, community cohesion and integration. Chapter 2 explores
how networks contribute to community life, individual wellbeing and
collective survival strategies. It considers how ‘community’ has been
treated as a dimension of policy in the UK and illustrates this with
some examples from recent programmes.
Chapter 3 provides some definitions of community development
and offers a historical account of different models of community
development, mainly as they have emerged in the UK but with
reference to more global perspectives. Chapter 4 sets out the strands
that comprise community development interventions and reviews two
major programmes currently being implemented.
Chapters 5 and 6 are concerned with the structure, features and
functions of networks in society and in organisations. They examine
how interpersonal linkages affect the flow of power and influence
in decision making, how community cohesion is enhanced through
cross-community ‘bridge building’ and how emotions and shared
understandings underpin strategies for collective action and political
alliances.
In Chapters 7 and 8 I present the findings from research on the
role and practice of community workers, intermediaries, activists and
leaders. Community workers use and support networks to promote
collective empowerment and to help different agencies to work better
together. Specific skills and strategies are identified as well as a number
of valuable traits and attitudes. I argue that ‘networking the networks’
and actively nurturing the more difficult connections in communities
is our distinctive contribution. I therefore introduce the term ‘meta-
networking’ as a way of making visible this important community
development role.
Chapter 9 considers how and why networking benefits communities
and those that work with them. The concept of the ‘well-connected
community’ is presented as a way of thinking about ‘community’ as
the emergent property of complex and dynamic social systems. It is a
means of conjuring order out of chaos, building resilience and devising
innovative solutions to intractable problems. Recent applications from

xv
Structure of the book
the social sciences using complexity theory have been added, as have
developments in social media and information technology.
Chapter 10 explores key issues and dilemmas associated with a
networking approach to community development. It sets out the
implications of this model for practitioners, some of them already
familiar, such as accountability, role boundaries and ‘burnout’.
Chapter 11 draws the book to a conclusion by setting out a model
of the ‘well-connected community’, with some recommendations
for ensuring that networking practice is both effective and ethical,
suggesting how ‘good practice’can be supported by funders, managers
and policy makers.
Alison Gilchrist,
Independent community development consultant
April 2019

1
1
Community connections:
value and meaning
When the stranger says: what is the meaning of this city?
Do you huddle together because you love each other?
What will you answer? ‘We all dwell together
To make money from each other’? or ‘This is a community’?
T.S. Eliot, Chorus from ‘The rock’, 1934
Despite its varied definitions and applications, community development
is fundamentally about the development of ‘community’; but what do
we mean by ‘community’? It makes sense to begin by examining what
we know and understand about the concept. This book is based on a
belief that the experience of community is generated by and manifest in
the informal networks that exist between people, between groups and
between organisations. Community provides a crucial dimension to
our lives and is a persistent theme within policy making. Throughout
history, people have lamented the decline or eclipse of community
(Stein, 1960) and the associated weakening of local social ties.
The idea of community is generally regarded as a force for good:
a means of survival and progress. Lack of community is considered
a present-day ‘social evil’, confirming an apparent yearning for
community spirit and mutuality (Duerden, 2018). A survey carried
out in the UK indicated that the presence of strong community spirit
came fourth in people’s wish list for what made an ideal place to live
(Nextdoor, 2016). The majority in this sample also reported that they
felt there had been a loss of ‘community belonging’, as compared with
their grandparents’ generation, resulting in a sense of loneliness and
vulnerability in the face of criminal or anti-social behaviour. But, as
Lawrence (2018) suggests, we are facing a strange paradox between
people wanting to be more connected at community level, on the one
hand, while also choosing to live independently in single households
and zealously guarding their right to privacy. Bauman (2000, 2003)
contends that community can be seen as ‘liquid’, accommodating the
lumps and bumps of existing circumstances and flowing with prevalent
trends and discourses, notably a Western or contemporary desire for
freedom and autonomy. Without becoming cynical, it is important

2
to remember that references to community values and identities have
also been used to impose responsibilities, deny rights, generate conflict
and resist change (Day, 2006; Somerville, 2016).
Nevertheless, community has proved elusive and notoriously difficult
to define and to study. Indeed some writers advise against using the
term at all ‘because its overtones seem too simply favourable, [leading]
to an underestimation of the harsher tensions and sanctions of [some]
groups’ (Hoggart, 1957). Early sociologists struggled to devise an
operational use of the term. Some, like Stacey (1969), have argued
that it should be replaced with a seemingly more scientific-sounding
phrase, ‘local social system’; and this approach will be explored later.
Surveys on the characteristics of a ‘good’ community consistently
reveal that people value a wide range of community and support
groups, alongside a set of residents who are good neighbours and will
help each other (Adams and Hess, 2006). Nearby networks of family
and friends contribute to feelings of community, sustained through
recurrent, often ‘mundane and everyday interactions between people
in localised settings’ (Robertson et al, 2008).
This chapter considers some of the benefits and limitations of
community networks. It looks briefly at evidence and theories
concerning community life from anthropology and sociology before
exploring the ways in which networks operate to the advantage
of communities and, conversely, the ways in which they distort or
suppress choices and opportunities. The model of the well-connected
community argues that community development has a role to play in
helping people to make connections that are useful and empowering
and, in particular, it addresses how to overcome or dismantle some of
the obstacles that prevent people from communicating and cooperating
with one another. First, however, how do networks contribute to
community life? What have community studies revealed about people’s
everyday interactions and relationships? How is the term ‘community’
used and how does it compare to the idea of ‘social capital’? Chapter 2
will consider what relevance this has for public policy.
Community theory and studies
In his classic inventory of anthropological and sociological definitions of
community, Hillery (1955) identified a core feature to be regular, mostly
cooperative, interaction among a set of people over time. Labelling
a set of people a ‘community’ generally implies that they have some
common interest or bond (Taylor et al, 2000; Meijl, 2011). It also raises
expectations of loyalty, support and affirmation. Early sociologists such as

3
Community connections: value and meaning
Tönnies (1887) and Durkheim (1893) emphasised the emotional aspects
of local life, arguing that mutual understanding, shared experiences
and solidarity are what distinguish Gemeinschaft (community) from
Gesellschaft (society). In modern parlance, community comprises the
informal interactions and connections that we use to coordinate everyday
life. These links enable us to exchange resources and ideas for mutual
benefit and to share experiences in ways that are usually supportive.
Indeed, the experience of ‘community’ emanates from ordinary and
routine interactions and relationships between people who feel a sense
of belonging or shared fate. These patterns of exchange and linkages
are by no means random, nor are they formally organised, developing
organically according to local traditions, ‘on the ground’conditions and
personal affinities. Expediency and serendipity play a part, as do long-
standing customs and practice. The evolving webs of connection operate
through informal conventions, reflecting social or family roles, human
propensities to ‘flock together’ (known as homophily), geographical
factors such as spaces and places for gathering, local economics and
the availability of community-level infrastructure, such as clubs, social
venues, faith bodies, open spaces or regular cultural events. Personal,
collective and organisational networks are clearly key to understanding
how community operates, and how it differs from, and complements,
the more formal institutions of the state and civil society.
Historically, the prefix ‘community’ was used to soften the edge
of state interventions, implying user-friendly, accessible services or
partnership arrangements for the delivery of welfare to those sections
of the population said to have issues that are particularly difficult to
address. In policy and practice, ‘community’is invoked as both an agent
and an object for interventions devised to remedy perceived deficits
and alleviate deprivation (Day, 2006) or to encourage adjustment to
changed circumstances. When used as a collective noun, ‘community’
has connotations of separation; of ‘them and us’ and tends to refer to
people who are disadvantaged by poverty, oppression and prejudice. In
government policy and programmes, this underpins the deficit model
of community development and regeneration and is associated with
targeting so-called deprived areas, as indicated by locality-based measures
of health, educational attainment, income and access to amenities.
Many communities are resilient, vibrant and resourceful but have
been devastated through de-industrialisation. They have experienced
chronic under-investment and are often labelled as ‘hard-to-reach’,
‘left behind’, ‘excluded’ or ‘deprived’, usually due to an ignorant or
reluctant mainstream failing to provide appropriate resources or skills
to meet their needs and aspirations effectively (Craig, 2018). Although

4
the term ‘community’ is seen by some as a euphemism for poverty,
this deficit model is being increasingly challenged by ‘strengths-based’
community-led approaches. Nonetheless, old paternalistic connotations
linger, especially in the mindsets of governments, charitable foundations
and well-meaning professionals (Emejulu, 2015).
Community in history, sociology and anthropology
Anthropological research shows that collective organising characterises
all human societies. Studies of humans and other higher primates
suggest that we share an inherent sociability, a genetically ingrained
propensity to connect and to cooperate as tribes. Indeed it has
been suggested that this ability to coordinate activities with people
beyond the immediate family group was what gave Homo sapiens an
evolutionary advantage over Neanderthals in the struggle for survival
in the harsh climate of the European Ice Age over 30,000 years ago
(Dunbar, 1996; Gamble, 1999). This enabled us to settle in a wide
range of environments by maintaining strong networks to adapt as
‘generalist specialists’ (Hill et al, 2009; Roberts and Stewart, 2018)
in what Nowak and Highfield (2011) call the ‘snuggle for existence’.
Some suggest that our big brains developed because they proved useful
to track and maintain social connections (Dunbar, 2010).
Local loyalties and shared cultures
The distinction between society and community inspired the research
field known as community studies (see Nisbet, 1953; Bell and Newby,
1971; Crow and Allan, 1994; Day, 2006). Interpreting the use of
symbols, rituals and shared spaces has been of particular significance
in understanding the functioning of different communities. Initially,
community studies focused on specific areas, reporting on how
institutions and traditions shaped community life. The geographical
dimension of community was paramount in defining the people being
observed, such as the residents of a particular estate, small town or
island (Frankenberg, 1966). Locality was regarded as an important facet
of people’s identity and there was a strong emphasis in these studies
on the positive aspects of community life – the solidarity, the mutual
support and the ways in which people cooperated in their routine, as
well as ritual, activities. Attachment to place, such as a neighbourhood
or village, seems to be associated with strong social networks. Where
there is high population turnover, for example due to rented housing
provision or migration, this tends to undermine feelings of trust,

5
personal security and cohesion (Livingstone et al, 2008). Recent
research indicates that transience continues to be a barrier to collective
action and community empowerment (Baker and Taylor, 2018).
This geographical model of community still holds sway in many
people’s minds and has strongly influenced government area-based
initiatives such as ‘place-shaping’ strategies for devolution and social
action. Policy makers assume that people are more likely to become
engaged in local decision-making processes if they feel they have a
stake in the area where they live (Lyons, 2007; Taylor, 2008). However,
people’s social networks usually extend beyond geographical proximity,
often based on work, faith or hobbies (Webber, 1963; Wellman, 1979).
Communities are actively constructed by their members, rather than
merely arising from local circumstances. Featherstone et al (2012)
propose replacing old-fashioned notions of community with a form
of dynamic and ‘progressive localism’ that emphasises responsible
citizenship exercised through ‘loose and pragmatic’ networks whose
connections are being constantly reimagined and reconfigured, and
which create new spaces of convergence and inclusive hospitality
(Baker, 2018, p 267). Cultural traditions and symbols are used to
assert community identity, expressed through ceremonial activities,
music and flags or their equivalent (Cohen, 1985; Back, 1996). This
is about conventions and customs, often linked to religious or sporting
occasions, but also about the ways in which people go about their
everyday lives – their hairstyles, dress codes, language and so on. Such
‘badges of belonging’ reinforce community boundaries and can help
identify ‘friends’and ‘foes’through multifaceted ‘webs of significance’
(Geertz, 1973). These act as a social resource, reducing the stress of
determining how to act and what to expect, but can sometimes
constrain aspirations or choices (Green and White, 2007).
Global perspectives
The predominantly Western model of the free and independent
individual seems strange to other cultures that have a more collectivist
way of life and find great value in the web of relationships that
connect people to places, to each other and to the wider world of
land and objects. In Japanese, the symbol for human being combines
the characters for ‘person’ and ‘between’ – implying that human
existence is primarily recognised through interactions and how we
are perceived by others. This finds strong echoes in the Maori words
‘whanaungatanga’ meaning relatedness among people (Meijl, 2011)
and ‘whakapapa’ meaning the connectedness of everything (Russell,

6
2004). These terms are fundamental to how indigenous society is
organised in New Zealand and how it views humans’ place in the
world. The well-known Xhosa principle of ‘ubuntu’ conveys a similar
meaning of community, often translated as ‘I am because we are’. As
Archbishop Desmond Tutu explained, ‘It embraces hospitality, caring
about others … We believe a person is a person through another
person, that my humanity is caught up, bound up and inextricable
in yours’ (cited in du Toit, 1998, p 89). There is a Chinese proverb
that describes hell as a place where the spoons are six feet long so that
nobody can feed themselves, while heaven also has six-foot spoons
but people cooperate to feed one another.
Mutual collaboration and the advantages of collective action are core
values that make life meaningful and survivable. They convey a sense
of community and suggest a shared commitment to others. A recent
global survey of emotional life indicates that Latin American countries
score highly in the index of positive experiences because they have
strong social and family networks, and that this holds true even for
conflict situations (Gallup Poll, 2017). The importance of diversity is
well understood in Southern and Eastern cultures; as Gandhi asserted in
his teachings, ‘civilisation should be a celebration of differences’. There
is an African saying that ‘It takes a whole village to raise a child’, and
an Akan proverb contends that ‘in a single polis there is no wisdom’.
Social identity
Most people regard community as a ‘good thing’ that needs to be
revived and restored. It provides a sense of belonging and often forms
part of our social identity. But, as Sen wrote, ‘We are all members of
several communities, and our ties with them can increase or decrease. It
is both illogical and dangerous to corral people as if they could belong
to only one community’ (Sen, 2006, p 160). Many people see their
networks as flexible and strategic, contingent on social and political
contexts, as well as their personal circumstances and choices. Some
religious and ideological sects have established enclosed communities,
intended to protect adherents from the perils of contemporary life
(in whatever era) by rooting them in moral or spiritual certainties
(Jones, 2007). But most of us belong to communities that are open
to outside influence and continually changing. Many have embraced
globalisation, recognising that the networks of dependency and
interactions that develop through migration and cultural exchanges
represent a vibrant and enriching dimension of communities in the
modern world (Mayo, 2005; Craig, 2012).

7
Not only do individuals acquire different ways of thinking about
their own lives and the world around them, but they are able to gain a
sense of their own identity. The feedback and advice provided through
personal networks allow people to form judgements about themselves
in comparison with others and to keep track of their own reputations.
Psychologists believe that people’s sense of identity is socially
constructed within informal groups and networks, including sometimes
absorbing oppressive attitudes and ‘put downs’ (Tajfel, 1981; Abrams
and Hogg, 1990). The extent to which social media interactions can
magnify negative judgements, with damaging emotional effects, has
been widely reported (O’Keeffe and Clarke Pearson, 2011). Ethnic
identity is not inherited but, rather, constructed through narratives
and rituals passed down through successive generations or waves of
migration (Barth, 1998). This sense of community or shared fate is an
important ingredient in people’s willingness to undertake collective
action.
Models of ‘community’
Williams (1976, p 65) noted that community remains a ‘warmly
persuasive word … [that] never seems to be used unfavourably’.
There are many different ways of thinking about community and
each of us has a sense of how our networks shape and constitute our
personal communities, or ‘tribes’. For now, these are the major models
currently being used.
Social capital
‘Community’ has similar connotations to the more modern, and
currently popular, term ‘social capital’, first coined by Hanifan (1916),
who described it as ‘those tangible substances [that] count for most
in the daily lives of people: namely good will, fellowship, sympathy,
and social intercourse among the individuals and families who make
up a social unit’. The idea of social capital was rediscovered several
decades later, notably by Jacobs (1961), Bourdieu (1986), Coleman
(1990), Putnam (1993) and Woolcock (1998, 2001). Jacobs referred
to it as a ‘web of public respect [which constituted] a resource in
times of personal or neighbourhood need’. Social capital recognises
that the relationships of everyday life between neighbours, colleagues
and friends, even casual acquaintances, have value for the individual
and for society as a whole (Putnam, 2000; Dekker and Uslaner, 2001;
Middleton et al, 2005).

8
The French sociologist Bourdieu was critical of the function of social
capital in society because he was concerned with how inequalities in
wealth and power were perpetuated through culture and connections
(Bourdieu, 1986). He regarded social capital as a source of privilege
that benefited the upper echelons, but had little relevance for other
sections of society except to exclude them from opportunities for
advancement. This notion of elite networks based on ‘who we know
and how we use them’ (Heald, 1983) will be explored further in
Chapter 3. Broadly speaking, social capital can be defined as a collective
resource embedded in and released from informal networks (Lin,
2002).These are based on shared norms of trust and mutuality that
bestow advantage on individuals and communities: ‘better connected
people enjoy better returns’ (Burt, 2000, p 3). Measures of social
capital have tended to focus on three different (and not necessarily
causally related) aspects:
• levels of trust between people and social institutions;
• participation in social and civil activities; and
• networks of personal contacts.
Putnam is generally credited with popularising the concept of social
capital and highlighting its implications for government. His approach
has a particular resonance with liberal communitarian models of social
and family responsibility and therefore has wide appeal to politicians
and policy makers. Putnam describes social capital as the ‘connections
among individuals – social networks and the norms of reciprocity and
trustworthiness that arise from them’ that are created and maintained
through associational life, extended families and community activity
(Putnam, 2000, p 19). He argues that this may be due to the anticipated
‘shadow of the future’, cast by the likelihood that transgressions of
social norms or dishonesty will attract shame and sanctions from within
one’s networks (Probyn, 2004). Putnam’s (2000) research on levels of
social capital appears to demonstrate strong correlations with economic
prosperity, stable governance and social cohesion.
Understandably, this has appealed to a wide range of national
and global agencies concerned with economic development and
political stability. The World Bank has been especially keen to invest
in community empowerment and adult education programmes that
build social capital as a strategy for combating poverty and supporting
regeneration (Woolcock, 1998; Narayan, 2002; Alsop et al, 2005;
Kane, 2008). Most international programmes for poverty eradication,
for example sponsored by the World Bank or United Nations agencies,

9
require forms of community participation as a means of building
social capital, as well as ensuring some kind of contribution from the
beneficiaries (Bowen, 2008; Kane, 2008).
Putnam acknowledges that social capital is closely related to our
experience of community, reflecting general levels of trust and
interconnectivity within society: ‘a well-connected individual in a
poorly connected society is not as productive as a well-connected
individual in a well-connected society. And even a poorly connected
individual may derive some of the spill-over benefits from living in
a well-connected community’ (Putnam, 2000, p 20). Just like the
concept of community, social capital reflects shared norms and values
that are affirmed through sustained interaction and cooperation.
Woolcock (2001), building on Putnam’s model and echoing
Granovetter’s (1973) distinction between ‘strong’ and ‘weak’ ties,
suggests that there are different kinds of social capital:
• bonding: based on enduring, multifaceted relationships between
similar people with strong mutual commitments such as among
friends, family and other close-knit groups;
• bridging: formed from the connections between people who have
less in common but may have an overlapping interest, for example,
between neighbours, colleagues or different groups within an area;
• linking: derived from the contacts between people or organisations
beyond peer boundaries, cutting across status and similarity and
enabling people to gain influence and resources outside their
normal circles.
These distinctions between types of social capital are not always clear
cut in reality, since the boundaries and divisions within society are not
themselves immutable or easily defined (Bruegel, 2005). Nevertheless
this three-fold model is useful for thinking about the nature and
purpose of different kinds of relationships. Community development
is primarily concerned with the latter two forms of social capital –
bridging and linking (Wakefield and Poland, 2005). Bridging capital
can be seen as important for collective organising, managing diversity
and maintaining community cohesion (Fieldhouse, 2008). Linking
capital is needed for empowerment and partnership working. The
networking approach used to develop the well-connected community
emphasises the role played by community workers in helping people to
build bridges and make links that they might otherwise find difficult.
Although the idea of ‘community as social capital’ begs many
questions (Taylor, 2011), community networks do seem to represent

10
a significant collective resource. The term ‘community capital’ is
sometimes used to refer to the combined agglomeration of natural,
human, social, financial and built assets that may be collectively available
to members of a community, held in reservoirs of goodwill and mutual
assistance that are created by networks of reciprocal interactions (Knapp
et al, 2013).
Community psychology and multi-actor ecosystems
Another way of considering the meaning of community is to think
about what is going on in people’s minds (perceptions, attitudes
and emotions) and in the dynamics between us (power relations,
communication, behaviours and interactions). Sarason (1974) argued
that a sense of community arises from the myriad interactions between
individuals and their social context, including those who form their
immediate networks. In essence, community comprises the ‘perception
of similarity to others, an acknowledged interdependence with others,
a willingness to maintain this interdependence by giving to or doing
for others what one expects from them, the feeling one is part of a
larger dependable and stable structure’ (Sarason, 1974, p 175).
In sociology and community psychology, communities have long
been envisaged as ecologies of interdependent forces and actors, a
complex system of large networks with individual members feeling
connected and willing to sacrifice their own advantages for the greater
good (Park, 1929; Kelly, 2006). While this may seem somewhat naïve,
community psychology represents an important turn towards a more
holistic approach that uses multiple inter-professional interventions
to address social issues and seeks to promote changes that will benefit
all members of a community (Kagan et al, 2011; Jason et al, 2016),
mainly by mobilising local and professional knowledge to solve
underlying problems. The psychologist Bronfenbrenner (1979)
was an early proponent of the systems approach to communities,
emphasising the significance of interacting components and the
yearning for commonality. From an ecological perspective, a crucial
component of community is ‘biodiversity’, with different species
sharing a common environment, each with their evolutionary niche.
Complex communities have been observed in many ecosystems,
including in evidence from some of Earth’s earliest fossils. They
‘comprise species competing for numerous different resources or
species that create niches for others’ (Darroch et al, 2018). The same
can apply to human society as Capra recognises in his model of the
‘web of life’:

11
[I]n ecosystems, the complexity of the network is
a consequence of its biodiversity, and thus a diverse
ecological community is a resilient community. In human
communities, ethnic and cultural diversity plays the same
role. Diversity means different relationships, many different
approaches to the same problem. A diverse community is
a resilient community, capable of adapting to changing
situations. However, diversity is a strategic advantage only
if there is a truly vibrant community, sustained by a web of
relationships. If the community is fragmented into isolated
groups and individuals, diversity can easily become a source
of prejudice and friction. (Capra, 1996, p 295)
Ideas associated with systems thinking and complexity theory are
beginning to inform our understanding of community as a dynamic
mesh of nested and interconnected ecosystems (May, 2001; Easley
and Kleinberg, 2010; Britton, 2017). Government too has begun to
adopt this approach, with the latest strategy for civil society stating that
‘community will be seen as a “system” of inter-connected parts, each
of which impacts the others’ (Cabinet Office, 2018, p 106).
This view of communities as diverse, dynamic and adaptive uses
complexity theory to understand why local connections and small-
scale interactions lead to major changes. It is a model that is being used
in practice to understand the complexity of situations for development
interventions that create conditions for social change and community
health and that encourage community enterprise (Neely, 2015).
Box 1.1: Participatory city
The London Borough of Barking and Dagenham has set up an initiative to promote
friendship and social enterprise, ‘everyone, every day and everywhere’. It aims
to establish a ‘large-scale, fully inclusive, practical participatory ecosystem’ by
maximising the use of local assets,such as shared space and community facilities.
To this end it has created a web-based forum to guide people to these locations
and facilitate the exchange of skills and resources among local residents and
entrepreneurs.
The programme uses a business model and draws on twin principles of
environmental sustainability and economic development,promoting innovation,
local sourcing and mutual assistance. It deliberately seeks to foster a culture of
networking that builds bridging social capital and peer-to-peer connectivity.

12
Projects are encouraged that act as‘plug-in’ points that are explicitly accessible
and transparent, where residents from the many different ethnic communities
living in the borough can meet for specific activities (often around food or
making things).
See: www.participatorycity.org/
Below the radar: micro-level organising
Since the second edition of this book was published, more has been
learned about the sphere of associational life that is sometimes referred
to as forming the backbone of the community sector or its heart and
soul (McCabe and Phillimore, 2017, p 61). The energy and efforts of
‘low-flying heroes’(MacGillivray et al, 2001) are responsible for much
of these ‘under the radar’activities and micro-social enterprises that go
largely unnoticed by policy makers yet are a vital, albeit unregulated,
dimension of civil society. Although this micro-level of informal do-
it-yourself social action has been investigated and championed by
some (Rochester, 1999; Richardson, 2008; Soteri-Proctor, 2011),
its existence remained until recently somewhat ‘in the shadows’
(Chanan, 1992; 2003; McCabe, 2018). Small-scale charities, clubs and
community-led groups, such as food banks or street associations, tend
to be run by energetic volunteers and are reliant on donations, fund-
raising activities or seed-corn grants (McCabe and Burnage, 2015).
Although small and self-organised, they are not isolated and appear
well-connected at local level (Soteri-Proctor, 2017). This and their
independence mean that they can remain flexible and responsive to
changing circumstances. As the National Coalition for Independent
Action (NCIA) observed in their review of semi-formal self-organising
‘community service groups’ and ‘voluntary action associations’, ‘[t]he
purpose, ways of working and range of idiosyncratic activities are a
crucial aspect; however, these may be fuzzy, informal and hard to pin
down precisely’ (Aiken, 2014, p 8).
Despite facing innumerable challenges as a consequence of
the recession that began in 2008, many community groups have
demonstrated defiant resilience in the face of cuts and growing
demand, even while infrastructure support, including informal in-
kind assistance from local councils, has dwindled. The impact of
neoliberalism, austerity and the waning of community development
as a paid occupation has led to more activist-led approaches and this
layer of self-organisation is, unsurprisingly, regarded as an essential

13
plank of the government’s strategy for the future of civil society
in the UK (Cabinet Office, 2018). Emejulu (2015) has examined
these recent discourses, comparing the impact of neoliberalism in
the US and UK post-recession settings, and has found contemporary
community development practices to exhibit an unhelpful, patronising
slant towards communities. She highlights the tensions between the
rhetoric of community development values with the reality of what’s
happening on the ground as played out in the micro-politics of state-
sponsored interventions, leading her to call for a democratic renewal
through political education and for more respect for the work of
unpaid community leaders.
As Wilson (2018) has observed, reflecting on the last ten years of
community work in the UK, ‘Community-led development has to
negotiate the fine grain of micro-politics and may require support.’
These complicated and multitudinous interactions and exchanges
form the bedrock of community life. Attempts to harness this ‘under
the radar’ volunteering and community action are well meant but
sometimes clumsy. Making the links between these very informal
frontline micro-organisations and more formal infrastructure
organisations that could potentially offer ‘on tap’ advice and support
requires sensitivity and the skills of buddying and friendly mentoring
(Taylor and Wilson, 2015).
Commoning
Partly due to recent financial crises, there has been an upsurge in
independent collective action and social enterprise, organised in
geographical localities but also around shared identities and interests
(NCIA, 2015). This has led to a burgeoning revival of the notion
of ‘commoning’, defined as uncoerced participation and voluntary
association that takes place in ‘social spaces outside the home and away
from family and independent of political states and economic markets’
(Bollier and Helfrich, 2012). Commoning has been rediscovered as a
model for an alternative community economics, based on collective
ownership as groups of people come together to set up, for example,
schemes for shared housing (Kratzwald, 2016) and water supplies
(Clark, 2018). It could be argued that attempts to transfer assets and
establish ‘friends of’ groups to run what had hitherto been municipal
facilities (libraries, parks, swimming pools and so on) have pirated
the politics of commoning to paper over austerity cracks in public
provision and can instead be seen as a transfer of financial liabilities
and management burdens (Wilson, 2018).

14
This resurgence of commoning reflects commitments in community
development to claim and cherish shared values such as cooperation,
social justice and fairness (Esteva, 2014; Laerhoven and Barnes, 2014).
These ‘commonance’ models promote consensual decision-making
and draw much of their inspiration from global movements against
capitalism, such as Occupy. More formal arrangements have evolved,
increasingly web based, to facilitate such peer-to-peer exchanges,
including TimeBanks, Tool Link, Freegle, Streetbank and LETS, as
well as apps designed to encourage ‘urban commoning’or collaborative
consumption (Botsman and Rogers, 2010).
Conclusions
The idea of community continues its grip on private sentiments and
public policy. It signifies a valued dimension of society, and community
involvement has become a preferred means of addressing ‘wicked
issues’ and policy problems, locally, nationally and even globally.
However, communities take many forms and operate across various
areas and levels. In addition to the more traditional models of local,
geographically defined communities, we now need to consider other
ways people connect with one another to form:
• communities of identity (to share cultural activities and experiences);
• communities of interest or passion (to pursue or resist shared fates);
• communities of purpose (to achieve a common goal);
• communities of practice (to exchange experience and learning);
• communities of inquiry (to collectively investigate an issue);
• communities of support (to provide mutual aid and encouragement);
• communities of circumstance (to deal with temporary, sometimes
unplanned, situations).
These may overlap and be more salient for people at different times
in their lives or for different purposes, as will be considered in the
next chapter.
QUESTIONS FOR REFLECTION AND DISCUSSION
—
— What communities do you feel part of?
—
— Do you participate in community life? Why?

15
2
Community networks and
policy dimensions
I refuse the prison of ‘I’and choose the open spaces of ‘We’.
Toni Morrison, Mouth Full of Blood, 2019
Community brings many benefits to us as individuals and for society.
This chapter looks at how community networks support collective
arrangements that enable people to live and work together. It will also
explore the negative aspects of community networks that can lead to
stress, exclusion and corruption. Networks enable us to meet personal
and social challenges, seize opportunities and deal with some of the
problems facing communities in this increasingly global, yet fractured,
world. Over the years, governments of all persuasions have sought
to harness the power and knowledge to be found in communities,
and the chapter considers how policy making has incorporated these
functions to the advantage of both state and society.
Survival and resilience
Low-income communities, struggling with hardship and uncertainty,
are often praised for their resilience, despite what Dobson (2018) calls
‘frenetic neglect’. But resilience doesn’t necessarily challenge social
injustices; for those affected, it tends to be associated with communities
‘getting by’ and ‘just about managing’ (Hickman et al, 2014). The
Joseph Rowntree Foundation’s (JRF) ‘liveable lives’ research revealed
the patterns and traditions of often mundane, subtle and unnoticed
‘everyday help and support’ in three neighbourhoods of Glasgow
(Anderson et al, 2015). There were a number of components to this
arrangement, not least the levels of trust and solidarity. Residents felt
that the city’s reputation for friendliness gave them a ‘licence’to act in
kind and generous ways, maintaining a ‘moral economy’ (Anderson
et al, 2015, p 41) of mutual sociability involving favours, swaps and
helping hands that enabled people to ‘stick together’while valuing both
privacy and reciprocity. The authors argue for a ‘social mindfulness’
of informal helping and greater awareness that networks may need
constant maintenance and occasional repair, especially in places where

16
there are low cohesion and poor public amenities (Anderson et al,
2015, p 56). At the individual level of what Brownlie (2014) calls
ordinary relationships (as opposed to professional ones), people seem
to benefit and find solace from the advice and support of others simply
‘being there’ in times of trouble, the kind of ‘emotional labour’ often
undertaken by women that helps people to cope with trauma and
get on with their lives (Guy et al, 2008; Hochschild, 2012). A study
in Sheffield found that areas that had ‘gathering places’ and regularly
shared local information demonstrated greater resilience, suggesting that
local networks among residents and between agencies are important
to helping communities to adapt to changing circumstances and to
accommodate uncertainty (Platts-Fowler and Robinson, 2013).
Studies of everyday life identify the many ways in which shared
spaces, and the activities that occur within them, are shaped by
informal behaviours (Vaneigen, 2006). Mostly, these small acts are
about conviviality and survival, construed as kindness, neighbourliness,
friendship, mutual aid and vigilance (Beck and Purcell, 2015). ‘People
who can draw on extended families and wider networks of friends are
more likely to be resilient to shocks that might push others further
into difficulty’(Bacon, 2013, p 10). An approximate reciprocity allows
people to trade in favours, support and practical assistance through
swaps and shares, without needing formal contracts or payments. This
casual, but often sensitively honed, help contributes to making lives
‘liveable’ in vital but often intangible ways. Action research projects
to investigate and foster kindness suggest that as a society we can
shape social infrastructure and landscapes to make it easier to habitually
express goodwill and thoughtful support (Anderson et al, 2015; Hall
and Smith, 2015; Ferguson, 2016, 2017).
Numerous community studies have highlighted the importance of
social connections in helping people to cope with adversity and, to
access resources and opportunities beyond the immediate circle of
acquaintances or what Morgan (2009) refers to as ‘known strangers’.
Informal networks enhance people’s ability to overcome difficulties and
disasters by keeping hope alive and bolstering wellbeing, even in the
face of long-term social exclusion and crises (Cattell, 2001; Matthews
and Besemer, 2014). Communities with strong social networks are
more likely to recover from catastrophe than those where networks are
obliterated or non-existent. Strategies for community resilience and
recovery are most effective if statutory bodies and non-governmental
organisations work through local networks to support relief efforts
rather than attempting to control interventions. As well as communities
appearing to crystallise from sudden disaster, they also coalesce

17
Community networks and policy dimensions
around experiences of systematic discrimination and exclusion. This
has been especially important in situations where communities have
been disrupted by civil war or migration (Hall, 1990; Andrew and
Lukajo, 2005). Work with refugees fleeing persecution and armed
conflict emphasises the importance of helping people to deal with
trauma and dislocation by rebuilding social networks that are culturally
appropriate, restoring personal and social resilience (Miller and Rasco,
2004; Phillimore et al, 2017; Piacentini, 2017, 2018).
For some marginalised and disadvantaged groups, these informal
and semi-formal collectives are a matter of survival: a means to
overcome barriers and challenge discrimination. For example, Gypsy,
Traveller and Roma (GTR) communities experience prejudice and
institutional procedures that prevent them from accessing services
and all sorts of opportunities, including education and employment
(Cemlyn et al, 2009). Traditionally, and probably as a consequence,
GTR livelihoods are often maintained through informal channels,
further disadvantaging them in the labour market. Historically, black
and minority ethnic communities in this country have encountered
institutional and interpersonal racism, and so have been forced to set
up their own arrangements for socialising, finding accommodation
and religious worship. Most migrant communities initially organise
through informal, ethnic-specific networks, even though these may
restrict opportunities while providing a vital safety net for ‘getting by’
rather than ‘getting on’.
Neighbourliness and mutual assistance
Small and routine acts of neighbourliness help to maintain loose and
interdependent ties within localities, improving people’s sense of
safety and strengthening community spirit (Henning and Lieberg,
1996). Research in the Netherlands indicates that this is enhanced in
localities with more than one meeting place, and where there are both
opportunities and incentives for people to invest in local relationships
(Völker et al, 2007).
Many people get involved in community activities in order to meet
people and gain a sense of belonging. For some, this is about self-help
and survival, enabling people to cope during times of adversity and to
secure a decent quality of life for themselves and their families (Burns
et al, 2004). Community networks supply practical assistance with
a variety of tasks (Williams and Windebank, 2000, 2003; Williams,
2004). They operate as a collective mechanism for sharing risk and
resources in situations of scarcity and uncertainty (Stack, 1974;

18
Werbner, 1988). The Pakistani clan-like biraderi offered similar support
to newly arrived migrants and continue to exert their influence on
patterns of loyalty and exchange (Anwar, 1985), although perhaps to
a diminishing degree (Shaw, 2002).
Transnational communities created by global migration rely on
family and informal social networks to survive and these embryonic
support groups are often the precursors of civil society organisations
for those who settle (Theodore and Martin, 2007). These ‘networks
of necessity’ (Hunter and Staggenborg, 1988, p 253) are crucial
mechanisms for the survival and sustenance of poor and other
segregated groups. Several semi-formalised models for saving and
lending exist in different communities, such as the ‘pardner’ clubs and
‘hawala’systems used to share and transfer money without recourse to
formal contracts or banking systems. These are often based on kinship,
caste and trading networks that support reciprocal arrangements for
childcare, money-lending and similar exchanges, helping migrants to
smooth their settlement in Britain (Kottegoda, 2004). Both have deep
roots in former slave communities and were used by early immigrants
to the UK from the Caribbean and South East Asia. Although only
loosely regulated, they rely on informal peer pressure and the honour
system for enforcement.
Box 2.1:Awra Amba village
AwraAmba is an experimental community in northern Ethiopia that voluntarily
rejected dependency on aid and resolved to become self-reliant through
establishing a community cooperative to spin, weave, produce and sell cloth
products.After several years of hard work the village is earning enough through
its social enterprise to invest in social security and welfare services that they
make available to others nearby, including health and educational facilities.This
has allowed them to renew and consolidate relationships with neighbouring
communities who regard theAwraAmba example as an inspiration and positive
model for their own development.
The community is democratically run through several committees responsible
for different aspects of village life, with major decisions taken by referendums.
‘The teahouse is the heart of the village where people meet, gossip and debate
about everyday things as well as big philosophical matters’ (Journard, 2010).
As well as pioneering a model for economic self-sufficiency,AwraAmba’s founder,
Zumra Nuru, was determined to achieve a utopian vision of gender equality and

19
secularism, in marked contrast to the rest of the country.The villagers also have
a commitment to sharing their experiences with the wider world through an
interactive project that documents and shares their activities
See: http://visitawraamba.com/
Community cohesion and managing difference
Anderson (1983) talks about nationhood as an ‘imagined community’,
invoked through symbols, anthems and shared narratives to summon a
‘fictive unity’in which differences are acknowledged rather than feared
or reviled. The ‘community’ dimension of society can also be used as
a mechanism for integration and cohesion. Community cohesion is
able to transcend ostensible differences in origin and interests, but also
reflects local circumstances and pressures (Hussein, 2007; Khan, 2007;
Phillips, 2007). Networks help to build relationships within and across
communities, to span boundaries and to develop a consensus around
equality and justice that can inform future strategies for integration
and collaboration. Ideally, community offers a simple affirmation of
mutuality, in which individual relationships form and diversity can
flourish.
Since the period of significant migration in the 1950s, UK policies
for integrating people from these different backgrounds have moved
through stages of assimilation (expecting newcomers to fit in by
adopting British styles of living), multiculturalism (encouraging
communities to express their different traditions and preserve religious
practices) and, most recently, community cohesion (Flynn and Craig,
2012). Community development has been involved in each of these
phases, working to improve ‘race relations’ and promote equality
by combating racial discrimination and xenophobia and celebrating
diversity. This has included the formation of separate (ethnically based)
associations or projects, dealing with conflicts and supporting initiatives
that encourage inter-ethnic, inter-faith gatherings or collaboration
(Craig, 2017). While there is a long history of overt racism and racial
tensions in the UK, the turn of the century witnessed a peak of
inter-ethnic disturbances that raised widespread concerns among
policy makers about how amicably different ethnic communities lived
together and whether more could be done to overcome apparent
segregation (Community Cohesion Panel, 2004). Early definitions of
community cohesion emphasised the importance of ‘a common vision
and sense of belonging’for all communities, ‘similar life opportunities’,

20
the value of diversity and the development of ‘strong and positive
relationships … between people from different backgrounds’ (LGA,
2002, p 6). Often this was related to a desire to impose so-called
‘national values’ or to forge an overarching patriotic identity, such
as is embodied in the citizenship education and oaths of allegiance
introduced in Britain in 2004. However, research studies around
nationality, citizenship and community cohesion have struggled to
identify ‘common values’ and what constitutes ‘belonging’ (Rattansi,
2002; Modood, 2003; Buonfino with Thomson, 2007; Seabeck et al,
2007; Flint and Robinson, 2008).
Policy initiatives to promote community cohesion have mainly
been concerned with issues around fragmentation and the need to
build cross-community contact, rather than addressing deep-rooted
racial prejudice and grievances based on real or perceived inequality.
Xenophobic attitudes and myths of ghettoisation appear as the ‘shadow
side’ of strongly bonded, but defensive, communities (Clarke et al,
2007; Finney and Simpson, 2009), especially in relation to migrants of
any sort. Consequently, strategies for promoting community cohesion
tend to assert the need for unity based on the integration of different
cultures and experiences within society and the creation of place-
based ‘attachment’ campaigns, such as the ‘I love Manchester’ brand.
Achieving this push for inter-cultural respect and a local sense of
belonging requires a great deal of thought and effort (Robinson and
Reeve, 2006; Zetter et al, 2006; Cantle, 2008, 2012).
Social cohesion is undermined in a twisting spiral of suspicion and
competition for what are often scarce resources. In situations where
communities feel aggrieved or under attack, they can become polarised
and defensive, attempting to stem the tide of fragmentation or to reassert
cultural traditions. Community differences are marked by terrain,
fashion, jargon and other cultural signifiers. They become embedded
in notions of collective identity or belonging. Incompatibilities and
rivalries sometimes flare up as intercommunal tensions, sparked off
by trivial incidents that are fanned into incendiary significance by
rumour and long-standing resentment. For young people, these
networks are sometimes erroneously labelled as gangs, rather than
being seen as friendship groups organised around estates or ethnicities
(Alexander, 2000; Amnesty International, 2018). Terrorist-related
atrocities have exacerbated some forms of discrimination, notably
Islamophobia, while anti-Semitism seems also to be on the increase.
This has led to a growth in inter-faith activities and a rethinking of
strategies for engagement, integration and a more informed pluralism
(Buckingham, 2018; Muslim Council of Britain, 2018). But when

21
underlying inequalities and tensions are not addressed, or differences
are not acknowledged, attempts to artificially generate (or, worse, to
impose) a common identity tend to founder. Strategies for managing
diversity and promoting cohesion would benefit more than is generally
realised from encouraging neighbourliness and facilitating ‘bridge
building’ through intercommunity activities that strengthen and
improve informal relationships (Gilchrist, 2004; Harris and Young,
2009; Swales and Tipping, 2018).
Some commentators have argued that modern trends are leading
to a fragmentation of society, with individuals increasingly separated
into different communities or networks of affiliation, accompanied
by growing mutual suspicions and social isolation, for example in
relation to faith and ethnicity (Day, 2006). Evidence suggests that
diversity is associated with reduced levels of social trust (Putnam, 2007)
and is therefore undermining of community cohesion. This need
not be about inter-ethnic antipathies, but can be explained in terms
of cultural expectations and symbols which people use to interpret
the behaviour and intentions of those around them. However, it
would be wrong to assume that cohesion is affected only by ethnic
or national differences, since other dimensions of inequality clearly
shape community dynamics and disconnections, not least class and
income differences (Hero, 2007; Flint and Robinson, 2008; Craig,
2016; Swales and Tipping, 2018). We choose or are given multiple
affiliations, reflecting our myriad interests and circumstances.
Health and wellbeing
Evidence from a range of qualitative and quantitative studies suggests
that personal networks and social relations play a valuable part in
maintaining wellbeing (Ruggeri et al, 2016; Bagnall et al, 2018).
‘People who have close friends and confidants, friendly neighbours and
supportive co-workers are less likely to experience sadness, loneliness,
low self-esteem and problems with eating and sleeping […] subjective
wellbeing is best predicted by the breadth and depth of one’s social
connections’ (Helliwell and Putnam, 2006). The frequency and
quality of everyday interactions with neighbours, colleagues, ‘nodding
acquaintances’ and friends are positively correlated with both health
and happiness (Halpern, 2005; Marjoribanks and Darnell Bradley,
2017). The nature and diversity of these community connections
offer a useful foundation for non-clinical interventions leading to both
protection and recovery from a range of emotional and mental health
difficulties.

22
Relational networks established and nurtured through community
or neighbourly activities appear to bring considerable benefits (Searle,
2008) and generally improve people’s quality of life (Phillipson et al,
2004; Harris, 2008). Informal and discreet conversations within trusting
relationships provide information and advice on various matters.
Community networks act as cheap and user-friendly referral systems,
supplying informal help at times of crisis, and are often resorted to
before professional (and sometimes stigmatised) help is requested from
the appropriate agencies, particularly about embarrassing problems
(Godfrey et al, 2004). Having knowledgeable people within one’s social
network is generally useful, assuming of course that such enquiries
will be treated in confidence and not form the basis for gossip or
disapproval. Social networks supply informal care and surveillance,
although evidence suggests that family and friends provide different
kinds of support compared to neighbours, a fact that was somewhat
overlooked by ‘care in the community’ strategies (Evans, 2009). In
addition to these practical benefits, social networks have an emotional
impact. In studies of happiness, social psychologists have concluded that
social interaction of almost any kind tends to make people happier, both
in the short term and also in terms of their general disposition (Layard,
2005). It appears that it is not only the quantity of social interaction
that has this effect, but also the variety. People with diverse networks
seem to experience a higher degree of contentment than those with
an intensely supportive, but homogeneous, set of relationships (Argyle,
1996; Young and Glasgow, 1998).
This also applies to reported health: individuals with robust
and varied networks lead healthier lives than those who are more
isolated, lonely or whose networks consist of similar people (Szreter
and Woolcock, 2004; Cacioppo and Patrick, 2008). They have
stronger immune systems, suffer less from heart disease, recover more
quickly from emotional trauma and seem to be more resistant to the
debilitating effects of illness, possibly because of a generally more
positive disposition or because they maintain a more active life-
style (Kawachi et al, 1997; McPherson et al, 2013). Mental health is
similarly affected by the quality of people’s relationships, especially in
terms of their pathways to recovery (McKenzie and Harphan, 2006;
Seebohm and Gilchrist, 2008). Furthermore, strong social networks
between providers and carers are associated with good mental health
programmes, especially where these prioritise self-help and community
support (Coker, 2008).
However, poverty and social exclusion also contribute to ill-health
and cannot be eradicated simply through the buffering effects of

23
community connections (Cattell, 2001). Effective local campaigns (for
example, against harmful conditions, such as pollution or bullying) rely
on grassroots networks of activists and their allies. These contribute
directly to wellbeing by turning ‘private issues’ into public concerns
and tackling social problems that cause stress, often to the most
vulnerable or marginalised people in society (Ledwith, 2019). On
a more everyday scale, befriending schemes, targeted activity hubs,
such as Men in Sheds (Fildes et al, 2010) or projects that encourage
exercising together (see, for example, Saheli.org.uk), often provide
vital spaces for people to ‘do’ and ‘make’ things in accessible, safe
and non-stigmatised environments. Volunteering and neighbourhood
activity can be powerful shields against mental ill-health (Thomson
et al, 2015). Arts and festivals appear to be particularly effective in
promoting informal participation and improving community cohesion
across social boundaries (Brownett, 2018).
Collective collaboration and coordination
Weaving through communities are self-organised webs of relationships
with layers of semi-formal groupings that emerge as a result of joint
activities, regular interactions and conversations. These may be
temporary coalitions focused on an immediate problem or shared
aspiration, or they may be loosely sustained over years of mutual
support and overlapping interests. They operate primarily on the basis
of trust and familiarity, but convenience and common benefit are likely
to be major factors (Kohn, 2009). Examples might be a babysitting
circle, seed sharing at the allotment or a Saturday morning kick-
about on the playing fields. Nobody has a formal role in convening
or facilitating these, although usually an unsung catalyst may be found
among the participants.
Occasionally these loose arrangements morph into something a bit
more organised as a response to growing numbers or rising ambitions.
Members may be cajoled into taking on formal responsibilities and
a method of collective decision making might evolve. Thus roles
emerge for community leaders, volunteers and activists which may
rotate round the network, or individuals step forward (or are pushed)
into accepting particular jobs on behalf of the group.
Grassroots activities such as these occupy the foreground of
community life. They enable people to take action and to organise
around common interests and identities, perhaps campaigning for
improvements in their area or simply to provide social activities, such
as trips, parties or entertainment.

24
Solidarity and resistance
Sivanandan (1990), writing about the struggles of black and minority
ethnic communities in Britain, calls these ‘communities of resistance’
that may take on a political cause. Forming communities of identity
or interest can thus be seen as a device for collective empowerment
and is a familiar strategy for countering the dimensions of oppression
associated with race, class, gender, disability, age and sexual orientation.
As Weeks (2000, pp 240–3) writes, ‘the strongest sense of community
is likely to come from those groups who find the premises of their
collective existence threatened and who construct out of this a
community of identity’. Ryder (2017) describes a similar situation in
GTR communities still struggling to gain acceptance for their life-style
and ethnic identity (Clark and Greenfields, 2006).
Bauman (2001) refers to these as ‘peg’ communities, serving to
protect people against fears of isolation or ‘otherness’. This political
dimension of ‘community’ articulates a particular perspective or
‘consciousness’ awakened through processes of reflection and debate.
It finds expression in notions of ‘pride’ (such as Gay Pride parades or
the Notting Hill carnival), the self-organisation of Disabled people
or through a historical exploration of ‘roots’ (Ohri, 1998). These
actions provide opportunities for people to assert a positive identity in
a hostile world by demanding that ‘difference not merely be tolerated
and accepted, but that it is valued and celebrated’(Oliver, 1996, p 89).
The resulting social networks reinforce a sense of belonging and
provide a vital foundation for collective action, especially where this
is risky or highly demanding, as is often the case when challenging
injustice or exploitation. Solidarity in the face of adversity is an
important facet of community, but this same ‘us’ versus ‘them’ logic
can lead to sectarian violence and the stigmatisation of minority
groups.
Box 2.2: Sociable soup kitchen: Laib und Seele
A network of church-run food banks and soup kitchens has developed under
the auspices of Berliner Tafel. Known as Laib und Seele (meaning Loaf and
Soul), these involve volunteers from the local community to provide a different
approach to the usual humiliating and lonely experience for customers.While
clients are waiting to be served, they are offered coffee and home-made cake
and encouraged to chat with each other, as well as with the volunteers and
staff.

25
This is intended to create ties of neighbourliness and solidarity, breaking down
isolation and social barriers, and sometimes connections are kindled across
class and ethnic boundaries that make a real difference to local understanding
and cohesion. While appearing to be primarily a faith-led charity, the project
is proactively building a sense of community, empowering poor or vulnerable
people by treating them with dignity and friendship and generally behaving as
a ‘community that looks beyond its own horizons and stands in for humanity’
(Werth, 2018, p 141).
Downsides of community
Communities do not always bring unalloyed benefits. Informal
networks can be notoriously private and opaque (Taylor, 2011) and
relationships are not universally advantageous, either for the individual
or for society as a whole. There are drawbacks to membership, due
to uneven or exclusive power relations and sometimes inescapable
influences and obligations to ‘significant others’. Matthews and
Besemer (2015) are ambivalent in their review of the evidence, arguing
for a more ‘complex and nuanced’ understanding of network effects
on life chances, while others have suggested that different kinds of
connections (equivalent to strong and weak ties, perhaps) may act
in opposite directions in relation to crime, poverty, civic health,
environmental action and so on.
Peer pressure and exclusion
Communities are sometimes elitist, ‘tribal’ and oppressive. The
dominant norms associated with strong communities may damage
the confidence and identity of anyone whose preferences or activities
deviate from defined respectable behaviour. Consequently, people
who cannot, or do not want to, fit in with what is deemed ‘right and
proper’ may be ostracised so they either pretend to conform or they
leave, hoping to find refuge and fulfilment in more tolerant settings.
Community-based sanctions are used to uphold shared conventions
and perpetuate stereotypes, including malicious rumour, ‘sending
to Coventry’ and, at the extreme, vigilante activity and lynching.
Networks are sometimes used to exert these pressures, causing misery
as well as bodily harm – a tendency that can be exacerbated by social
media.
Community ties sometimes work against wider integration and
social inclusion, holding people back from pursuing their ambitions

26
and restricting employment mobility (Hudson et al, 2013; McCabe
et al, 2013). Peer pressure can outweigh scientific knowledge and
personal belief systems, thwarting long-term benefits and aspirations.
We see this in relation to the smoking habits of young people, and
patterns of truancy or petty vandalism. Adults are also susceptible,
finding themselves influenced by the ideas, choices and behaviour
of friends, colleagues and neighbours, sometimes against their own
better judgement. Criminal and paedophile rings operate in this way,
grooming victims and justifying their activities only by comparison
to other network members, rather than against wider social norms.
Global trafficking networks underpin modern-day slavery, and so-
called ‘county lines’ recruit vulnerable young people to deliver drugs
to provincial areas. Corruption likewise depends on closed networks
and misguided loyalties. Communities that are closed to outside
influence and scrutiny may become moribund or shunned by the rest
of society. Furthermore, networks often contain pockets of power
that are difficult to unmask or challenge. Where networks operate
against opportunity and equity, a networking approach to community
development must be proactive in countering and overcoming barriers
set up through personal loyalties, biases and prejudices (Sandel, 2014).
Social media platforms have received a particularly bad press for
precisely these effects. With the power of new communication
technologies, network connections have become more easily established
with like-minded others and more easily maintained remotely. They
are also more personalised, for example in the sense of being dependent
more on personal choices than on historical affiliations. Further, it
can be observed that the social media platforms that facilitate the
maintenance of relationships are highly commercialised and embedded
in a political ideology that conflicts with the ethos of community
development. These issues are explored in more depth in Chapter 10.
Policy dimensions
The call to ‘community’ can be seen as the hardy perennial of public
social policy (Taylor, 2011). The idea of a ‘mixed economy of welfare’
was initially understood as an acceptance that the state (usually through
local council grants, but sometimes channelled directly from central
government departments) would share responsibility with charities
and voluntary organisations for providing support and services to
those in need of help. In the 1990s the government became more
explicit about commissioning services from the not-for-profit sector.
Competitive tendering was a feature of this system, with private

27
companies competing for business with voluntary bodies that were
heavily reliant on volunteer effort to both manage and deliver services
at the local level.
Participation and empowerment
Many governments across the world have been strongly influenced
by communitarian thinking and a commitment to subsidiarity. This
return to ideas of community participation in decision making is to
be welcomed, especially where it is based on collective empowerment
rather than notions of individualist ‘user’ or consumer rights. It may
seem obvious that the existence of ‘community’ is a prerequisite for
community involvement, and yet few policy officers or regeneration
managers realise that key elements of community capacity – networks,
interaction, common purpose, collective identity and organisational
infrastructure – ideally need to be in place before there can be effective
and equal partnership.
Increasingly, the connectedness of social networks is recognised as
crucial to the capacity of communities to participate in civil society
and deliver policy outcomes (Taylor, 2011; Cabinet Office, 2018), but
the explanations for this may be more complex than is first realised
(Brannan et al, 2006).
There are four conceptual struts that underpin policy interest in
‘community’:
• self-help
• social capital
• governance
• service delivery.
Self-help has been a long-standing theme for governments keen to
avoid excessive interference in people’s welfare (sometimes referred to
as the ‘nanny state’) while limiting public spending. Over many years,
programmes have been pursued to mobilise volunteers and neighbours
to provide informal care and promote people-powered social action,
based on self-help and solidarity, to secure local outcomes such as
community safety and environmental improvements through activities
such as neighbourhood vigilance or litter picking.
Social capital became a key policy concept under New Labour
(1997–2010), seeking to develop greater community engagement
and reduce social exclusion. High levels of social capital appear to
be correlated with several core policy objectives around improving

28
health, reducing crime, increasing educational attainment and
economic regeneration. Given the evidence linking social networks
to these policy outcomes, it made sense for the government to support
interventions that strengthen networks and build trust (Halpern, 2009).
Governance is about involving community members, service users
and other stakeholders in partnerships with oversight and strategic
decisions that previously might have been undertaken by elected
representatives in local and national governments. Communities have
been invited to participate in cross-sectoral advisory and decision-
making forums around a number of policy themes or focused on
devising area-based interventions or determining local planning
priorities.
In terms of service delivery, community groups and voluntary
organisations provide significant services through self-organising and
community action (Richardson, 2008). The voluntary and community
sectors, in particular, have been influential in pioneering welfare
services tailored to the needs of specific sections of the population
neglected by mainstream agencies. The recruitment and support of
volunteers has been a major function of the sector, running local and
community activities in addition to providing auxiliary services in
public institutions such as hospitals or schools.
As we will see in the following chapter, community networks
provide important infrastructure capacity for associational life and civil
society. They have a particular relevance to policies and programmes
seeking to promote democratic renewal, social cohesion, economic
regeneration and public health. Recent political agendas, driven by
a commitment to devolution but accompanied by austerity cuts,
have been based on a form of ‘localism’ that decentralises decision
making and encourages grassroots responsibilities for running services
through town and parish councils, alongside ‘ultra-local’ social action
(Derounian, 2018).
Local community engagement
Under the New Labour government cross-departmental policies
championed community engagement, with a range of programmes
and policies urging public services and democratic institutions to
engage with communities and empower citizens to take on greater
responsibilities and civic roles. Across the nation, new posts were
created in councils, statutory services and health bodies to roll out
community engagement strategies and service the growing number
of interdisciplinary and cross-sectoral forums – some strategic, others

29
concerned with delivering services. Community involvement,
through representation on local partnership bodies, was critical in
making sure that strategies devised to tackle deep-rooted problems of
neighbourhood deprivation and decline would reflect the needs and
aspirations of residents and harness their knowledge of what might be
likely to work in given circumstances. As Milbourne (2013) has noted,
there were several contradictory messages in the policy environment
during this period, with many voluntary organisations wanting to
align with policy opportunities, while struggling to reconcile financial
survival and stay true to their founding ideals.
In several respects, austerity policies have raised expectations for how
communities and individual citizens might influence local decision
making or take responsibility for managing local services and facilities
(Aiken, 2014; NCIA, 2015). Current government policies have tilted
the balance between state and society towards ‘people-powered’social
action, associated with the localism, community rights and open public
services agendas. The ‘community rights’ family of programmes,
established under the Localism Act 2011, offered grants and supports to
communities to encourage them to tackle locally identified problems.
This approach, which has been described as ‘[delivering] differently
in neighbourhoods’, may include transferring assets such as land
and buildings from management by local authorities to community
ownership. It has been criticised as not going far enough to empower
communities and arguing that this would require a more ‘enabling
state’ (Wallace, 2013; Elvidge, 2014) with major shifts in institutional
cultures, enhanced participatory democracy and increased capacity
at grassroots level (Commission on the Future of Localism, 2018).
The term ‘enabling state’ needs to be reinterpreted to allow for small
community groups to undertake services, perhaps through the auspices
of social enterprises and community interest companies (Crowe, 2012).
This may mean councils acting more as ‘catalysts’, creating joint
ventures that involve strategic partnerships with the voluntary sector.
The ‘less formalised structures’ of voluntary organisations are seen as
advantageous, enabling them to be ‘sufficiently flexible and responsive
to ensure that services are tailored to meet each user’s personal needs’
(Crowe, 2012, p 21), with trust and accessibility acknowledged as
important features of the voluntary and community sector way of
doing things. This orientation towards communities may be a response
to growing criticisms of public service hierarchical regimes as being
overly bureaucratic and inefficient (Seddon, 2008). The ‘cooperative
councils’ approach similarly aims to reconnect councils with the
people they are meant to serve, by ‘releasing’ the potential value of

30
social capital and encouraging active participation in service design
and delivery based on self-help, solidarity, democracy and, of course,
mutual cooperation.
Community life can be seen as ‘a mechanism that arises to cope
with lack of opportunity rather than one that creates opportunities’
(Sprigings and Allen, 2005, p 398). Although communitarian thinking
prescribes stable and well-integrated communities as a condition for
progress and social inclusion, particularly when faced with complex
and intractable problems, it is by no means clear how much community
participation, as a component of public policy, can be linked to
market forms of social justice (see Craig et al, 2008). Indeed, it has
been argued that such strategies have exacerbated social exclusion
because they have been insufficiently redistributive of either resources
or opportunities. This results in ‘sink estates’, slums and the same
neighbourhoods consistently appearing towards the top of successive
indices of deprivation. Cynics might claim that community is more
about chains than choices.
Populism and polarisation
The aftermath of the Brexit referendum, with rising inequalities
and social polarisation along with the worldwide spread of populism
(Piketty, 2013; Judis, 2016; Kenny, 2017; Westoby, 2017; Dorling,
2018; Popple, forthcoming), has led to increased fragmentation
between communities and mounting levels of resentment and hate
crime (Mayo, forthcoming). Widening material inequalities in the
distribution of wealth, income and privileges undermine the desired
sense of civic togetherness, usually referred to as social cohesion
(Dorling, 2015).
Populism is often characterised as reflecting a distrust of elites, such
as politicians and experts, along with their associated institutions.
Demagogic leaders expound political analyses that place the blame
for social ills on scapegoats or previous regimes – messages that get
amplified through social media. They claim authority in speaking
for ‘ordinary people’, articulating their grievances and championing
a form of ‘people power’ that, superficially at least, could be seen as
aligned with the community development principles of empowerment
(Kenny et al, forthcoming). Some right-wing organisations have used
local agitators and community organising methods to try to build
support for their views, recruiting members via activist networks and
mobilising protests around expressed grievances. However, as Kenny
and her colleagues assert, there are similarities and tensions between

31
left- and right-wing populism, with their reliance on emotions and
sense of disenfranchisement. Community development must not
allow itself to be seduced by populist movements, and must appeal
instead to a more participatory form of democracy and the politics
of hope and justice (Solnit, 2016). The 2016 Brexit referendum and
subsequent debates revealed and exacerbated deep divisions within
society. This has long been acknowledged as a problem for cohesion,
fuelled by far-right propaganda about migrant workers and refugees
(Goodwin, 2011). Although economically disadvantaged areas do tend
to report lower levels of cohesion (measured on scales of trust or
neighbourliness), those communities enjoying super-diversity seem to
have high cohesion scores (Laurence and Heath, 2008; DCMS, 2018).
Conclusions
There seems to be broad agreement that ‘community’ is a universal
aspiration and characteristic of most societies, albeit with some
dissent and counter-evidence. An emphasis on inter-connecting
and constantly changing networks acknowledges that communities
reflect diverse cultures and social identities. Indeed, community itself
can be usefully conceptualised as a set of ‘practices’, which people
‘perform’to varying degrees through everyday interactions and familiar
relationships to develop shared traditions and mutual commitments
(Blokland, 2017). We are better off individually and collectively if
we are well connected. So how can community be strengthened and
sustained through community development? In order to turn the
rhetoric of community empowerment and community leadership into
a meaningful and sustainable reality, informal and formal networks
need to be developed and strengthened so that representatives can be
supported and held accountable. This echoes an African maxim: ‘If
you want to go quickly, go alone. If you want to go far, go together.’
Time and effort are needed to build relationships of trust and respect
across different sectors and between partner agencies responsible for
designing and managing the new plans or strategies.
Compared with law, medicine or even social work, community
development is a relatively precarious profession. To some extent, it has
become an instrument of state policy, deployed to address perceived
problems of what is sometimes called ‘social exclusion’: poverty,
discrimination and an apparent breakdown in public order. Community
development supports networks that foster mutual learning and shared
commitments so that people can work and live together in relatively
coherent and equitable communities. The purpose of community

32
development is to maintain and renew ‘community’ as a foundation
for the emergence of diverse initiatives that are independent of both
the public and private sectors. This book aims to persuade policy
makers and practitioners alike that networking is a necessary and
effective method of boosting bridging and linking social capital, thus
enhancing community cohesion and citizen empowerment. It goes
on to argue that a core, but often neglected, function of community
development work is to establish, facilitate and nurture the crucial,
but more challenging, boundary-spanning ties that support collective
action and empowerment.
QUESTIONS FOR REFLECTION AND DISCUSSION
—
— Think about the communities and informal networks that are important
to you.What do you contribute and what do you gain? Are there any
negative consequences for you?
—
— What is your experience of community engagement? How does involving
residents or community members in decision making improve their lives?
What gets in the way?

33
3
Community development:
principles and practice
There is no greater service than to help a community to
liberate itself.
Nelson Mandela, 2003
If society needs ‘community’, and community doesn’t necessarily just
happen, what is needed to help bring it about? How does community
work support networks and promote greater connectivity? Chapter 3
provides an overview of community development. It traces the
history of community development as a form of funded or external
intervention over the past century and up to the present day. The role
of community workers in supporting networks is highlighted briefly,
in preparation for a more detailed consideration in the following
chapters.
This book generally views community development as a professional
occupation, a paid role with established values and skills, and associated
responsibilities to achieve certain outcomes. I fully acknowledge
that many factors contribute to the development of communities,
most importantly the time, energy and expertise of local community
members themselves, as well as resources, technical expertise and
activities offered by partner organisations. Many communities function
well without professional inputs, although all can benefit from even
small amounts of support, for example advice, facilitation, mediation
and reflection.
Community development in the UK has tended to emphasise a
generic approach to strengthening community capacity and tackling
broader issues around equality and social justice (Gilchrist and Taylor,
2016). Processes and principles are regarded as paramount and this is
reflected through an emphasis on working with, rather than for or on
behalf of, people. In this book, the term ‘community development’ is
used broadly, encompassing a number of approaches to working with
communities, and these different models will be explored further in
this chapter.

Random documents with unrelated
content Scribd suggests to you:

classes, except music renewals which are listed in Part 5C,
described above. $1.00.
Dramatic Compositions Copyrighted in the United States, 1870 to
1916. 2 vols. 1918.
Includes all titles for dramatic works registered from July 21,
1870, to December 31, 1916, inclusive; upwards to 60,000 titles.
Alphabetical arrangement by title, with index of claimants,
authors, editors, etc. $4.00.
Motion Pictures, 1894–1912. 1953.
Lists about 6,000 works registered as photographs in the
Copyright Office and identified as motion pictures by Mr.
Howard L. Walls, Curator of the Motion Picture Collection of the
Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences. Alphabetical
arrangement by title, with an index to claimants. $2.00.
Motion Pictures, 1912–1939. 1951. $18.00.
Motion Pictures, 1940–1949. 1953. $10.00.
These two volumes belong to the Catalog of Copyright Entries,
Cumulative Series. They list approximately 70,000 motion
pictures registered in the Copyright Office from August 24, 1912
to December 31, 1949. Alphabetical arrangement of each volume
is by title, with an index to authors, claimants, and producing
and distributing companies, and a list of series titles.
Regulations of the Copyright Office. A reprint of the Code of
Federal Regulations, Title 37, Chapter II. Free.
The Copyright Office of the United States. 1952. A general
description of the organization and functions of the Copyright
Office. Free.

The following publications may be ordered from the Register
of Copyrights, Library of Congress, Washington 25, D. C., or
from the Superintendent of Documents, U. S. Government
Printing Office, Washington 25, D. C.
Copyright in Congress, 1789–1904. A bibliography and
chronological record of all proceedings in Congress in
relation to copyright. (Bulletin 8) 468 p. 1905. Cloth, 65
cents.
Copyright Law of the United States of America. (Bulletin
14), 1953 edition. 20 cents.
Decisions of the United States Courts Involving Copyright.
1909–14 (Bulletin 17) 65 cents.
1914–17 (Bulletin 18) $1.00.
1918–24 (Bulletin 19) $1.75.
1924–35 (Bulletin 20) $2.75.
1939–40 (Bulletin 23) $1.00.
1941–43 (Bulletin 24) $2.00.
1944–46 (Bulletin 25) $1.50.
1947–48 (Bulletin 26) $1.75.
1949–50 (Bulletin 27) $2.00.
1951–52 (Bulletin 28) in process.

TRANSCRIBER’S NOTES
Copyright
Registration
or Page
Number
Changed From Changed To
KP1964 © Revillon Frères;
30Jun22; KP1964.
© Revillon Frères;
30Jun22; LP1964.
LMP3202 © 21May48;
LMP3202
© 21May48;
MP3202.
LP336 Donald's Double
Trouble.
Donald's Double
Trouble. 1946.
LP532 Mighty Mouse in The
Wicked Wolf.
Mighty Mouse in
The Wicked Wolf.
1946.
LP955 *Fear in the Night. *Fear in the Night.
1947.
LP1036 Credits: Colbert Clark Credits: Producer,
Colbert Clark
LP1205 12Mar4 12Mar47
LP1377 CHIP AN 'DALE CHIP AN' DALE
LP1921 Nicholas Nickleby.
1948.[Under
DICKENS]
Nicholas Nickleby.
1947.
1948.[Under
PRESTIGE]
Nicholas Nickleby.
1947.
1948.[Under
RANK]
Nicholas Nickleby.
1947.
1948.[Under
UNIVERSAL-
INTERNATIONAL]
Nicholas Nickleby.
1947.

1948.[Under
UNIVERSAL]
Nicholas Nickleby.
1947.
LP1935 director Credits: director
LP9318 Royal Mounted in
Yukon Flight.
Renfrew of the Royal
Mounted in Yukon
Flight.
LP10093 *Trail Blazers. *Trail Blazers. 1940.
LP10231 *No, No, Nanette. *No, No, Nanette.
1940.
LP10637 *Lady Scarface. *Lady Scarface.
1941.
LP10679 THIS WOMAN IN
MINE
THIS WOMAN IS
MINE
LP11762 *Jasper and the
Choo-Choo.
*Jasper and the
Choo-Choo. 1943.
LP13208 Unwelcome Guest. Unwelcome Guest.
1945.
LP13224 A TREE GROWS IN
BOOKLYN
A TREE GROWS IN
BROOKLYN
LP13247 THE SHOOTING OF
DAN MCGREW
THE SHOOTING OF
DAN McGREW
LP13476 © Harold Lloyd
Corp.; 20Oct49;
LP13476
© Harold Lloyd
Corp.; 20Oct29;
LP13476
LU2664 LA BEAUTE DU
DIABLE
LA BEAUTÉ DU
DIABLE
MP248 5Mar56 5Mar46
MP719 PRONTO SOCORRO PRONTO SOCÔRRO
MP726 A CONSERVAÇAO
DOS RECURSOS
NATURAIS
A CONSERVAÇÃO
DOS RECURSOS
NATURAIS
MP729 VELOCIDADE DAS
REAÇOES
QUIMICAS.
VELOCIDADE DAS
REAÇÕES
QUÍMICAS.
MP733 OS COMBUSTIVEIS
E O CALOR
OS COMBUSTÍVEIS
E O CALOR
MP774 EN ENFERMAGEM
DOMESTICA
EN ENFERMAGEM
DOMÉSTICA
MP806 OYET OG DETS
HYGIENE.
ØYET OG DETS
HYGIENE.

MP831 AS GLANDULAS
ENDÓCRINAS
AS GLÂNDULAS
ENDÓCRINAS
MP844 THÉORIE
MOLÉCULAIRE
DE LA MATIER̀E
THÉORIE
MOLÉCULAIRE
DE LA MATIÈRE
MP1054 100. Lightning 100. Aug. 14, 1946.
Lightning
MP1140 CRIANCAS
MEXICANAS
CRIANÇAS
MEXICANAS
MP1392 ANIMALS
CASEIROS.
ANIMAIS
CASEIROS.
MP1626 AS CRIANÇAS DA
SUICA.
AS CRIANÇAS DA
SUIÇA.
MP1628 ANIMALS
AQUÁTICOS
ANIMAIS
AQUÁTICOS
MP1670 CARRERAS, SALTOS
Y RELEVOS
CARRERAS,
SALTOS Y
RELEVOS
MP1694 OS INDIOS
NAVAJOS
OS ÍNDIOS
NAVAJOS
MP1719 A VIDA RURAL NO
MEXICO.
A VIDA RURAL NO
MÉXICO.
MP1856 O POVOS DAS
PLANTAÇOES.
O POVOS DAS
PLANTAÇÕES.
MP1902 Red Fury. Red Fury. 1947.
MP4715 CARRIBBEAN
CAPERS
CARIBBEAN
CAPERS
MP4846 C Encyclopaedia
Britannica Films,
Inc.
© Encyclopaedia
Britannica Films,
Inc.
MP9883 WASHINGTON—
THE SHRINE OF
AMERICAN
PATRIOTRISM
WASHINGTON—
THE SHRINE OF
AMERICAN
PATRIOTISM
MP10264 THE CHEWIN
'BRUIN
THE CHEWIN'
BRUIN
MP10753 POLSKA NIE
ZGINELA
POLSKA NIE
ZGINEŁA
MP10763 THE FIGHTING
69TH1/2
THE FIGHTING
69TH–1/2

MP11054 *Old Macdonald Had
a Farm.
*Old Macdonald
Had a Farm. 1941.
MP11644 Milestones of
Democracy. 1 reel.
2. Milestones of
Democracy. 1 reel.
MP11840 MAIN STREET. U. S.
A. - 1942
MAIN STREET. U.
S. A.—1942
MP12016 9Dec51 9Dec41
MP12079 4. © 21Jul41;
MP12079
5. © 21Jul41;
MP12079
MP12300 Hub of the World. Hub of the World.
1942.
MP12939 MEN IN
WASHINGTON -
1942
MEN IN
WASHINGTON—
1942
MP13059 15Oct52 15Oct42
MP13623 GLOBIAL RHYTHM GLOBAL RHYTHM
MP14532 38. 2 reels. ©
5Jan44; MP14532
37. 2 reels. ©
5Jan44; MP14532
MP14636 13Feb48 13Feb44
MP16148 *Schoolhouse Jive. *Schoolhouse Jive.
1945.
MP16159 *After a While. *After a While. 1945.
MP16525 17Oct35 17Oct45
MU16571 Open Door. Open Door. 1945.
MU3795 WINGS TO NEW
YORK. Charles D.
Beeland for 1,145
feet, sd. Pan
American World
Airways, Atlantic
Division.
WINGS TO NEW
YORK. Charles D.
Beeland for Pan
American World
Airways, Atlantic
Division. 1,145
feet, sd.
P. 515 DEPARTAMENTO
DO
OFTALMOLOGIA,
ESCOLA DE
MÉDICOS E
CIRURGIÕES
DEPARTAMENTO
DE
OFTALMOLOGIA,
ESCOLA DE
MÉDICOS E
CIRURGIÕES
P. 536 TELETAKE
PRODUCTIONS
TELETALE
PRODUCTIONS

1. Corrected spelling, accents, grammar,
hyphenation, and punctuation of names
according to the following guidelines.
For movies name used in the main Motion
Pictures list determined usage unless all
the Index entries indicate otherwise. See
change list.
The names of individuals and companies
featured in the Index listing determined
usage unless all of the Motion Pictures
entries indicated otherwise. See change list.
2. Silently corrected simple spelling, grammar, and
typographical errors of other than names of
movies, persons, and companies as mentioned
previously.
3. Otherwise retained anachronistic and non-
standard spellings as printed.

*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK MOTION PICTURES,
1940-1949 ***
Updated editions will replace the previous one—the old editions will
be renamed.
Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S.
copyright law means that no one owns a United States copyright in
these works, so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it
in the United States without permission and without paying
copyright royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of
Use part of this license, apply to copying and distributing Project
Gutenberg™ electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG™
concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark,
and may not be used if you charge for an eBook, except by following
the terms of the trademark license, including paying royalties for use
of the Project Gutenberg trademark. If you do not charge anything
for copies of this eBook, complying with the trademark license is
very easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose such as
creation of derivative works, reports, performances and research.
Project Gutenberg eBooks may be modified and printed and given
away—you may do practically ANYTHING in the United States with
eBooks not protected by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject
to the trademark license, especially commercial redistribution.
START: FULL LICENSE

THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE

PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK
To protect the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting the free
distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work (or
any other work associated in any way with the phrase “Project
Gutenberg”), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full
Project Gutenberg™ License available with this file or online at
www.gutenberg.org/license.
Section 1. General Terms of Use and
Redistributing Project Gutenberg™
electronic works
1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg™
electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree
to and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property
(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all
the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or
destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in your
possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a
Project Gutenberg™ electronic work and you do not agree to be
bound by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund
from the person or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in
paragraph 1.E.8.
1.B. “Project Gutenberg” is a registered trademark. It may only be
used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people
who agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a
few things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg™ electronic
works even without complying with the full terms of this agreement.
See paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with
Project Gutenberg™ electronic works if you follow the terms of this
agreement and help preserve free future access to Project
Gutenberg™ electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below.

1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation (“the
Foundation” or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the
collection of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works. Nearly all the
individual works in the collection are in the public domain in the
United States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law
in the United States and you are located in the United States, we do
not claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing,
performing, displaying or creating derivative works based on the
work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of
course, we hope that you will support the Project Gutenberg™
mission of promoting free access to electronic works by freely
sharing Project Gutenberg™ works in compliance with the terms of
this agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg™ name associated
with the work. You can easily comply with the terms of this
agreement by keeping this work in the same format with its attached
full Project Gutenberg™ License when you share it without charge
with others.
1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also
govern what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most
countries are in a constant state of change. If you are outside the
United States, check the laws of your country in addition to the
terms of this agreement before downloading, copying, displaying,
performing, distributing or creating derivative works based on this
work or any other Project Gutenberg™ work. The Foundation makes
no representations concerning the copyright status of any work in
any country other than the United States.
1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg:
1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other
immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg™ License must
appear prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg™
work (any work on which the phrase “Project Gutenberg” appears,
or with which the phrase “Project Gutenberg” is associated) is
accessed, displayed, performed, viewed, copied or distributed:

This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United
States and most other parts of the world at no cost and with
almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away
or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License
included with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you
are not located in the United States, you will have to check the
laws of the country where you are located before using this
eBook.
1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is derived
from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not contain a
notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the copyright
holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in the
United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are
redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase “Project
Gutenberg” associated with or appearing on the work, you must
comply either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through
1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project
Gutenberg™ trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is posted
with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution
must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any
additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms
will be linked to the Project Gutenberg™ License for all works posted
with the permission of the copyright holder found at the beginning
of this work.
1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project
Gutenberg™ License terms from this work, or any files containing a
part of this work or any other work associated with Project
Gutenberg™.
1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this
electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without
prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1

with active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project
Gutenberg™ License.
1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary,
compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form,
including any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you
provide access to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg™ work
in a format other than “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other format used in
the official version posted on the official Project Gutenberg™ website
(www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or
expense to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or
a means of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original
“Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other form. Any alternate format must
include the full Project Gutenberg™ License as specified in
paragraph 1.E.1.
1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying,
performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg™ works
unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing
access to or distributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works
provided that:
• You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive
from the use of Project Gutenberg™ works calculated using the
method you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The
fee is owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark,
but he has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to
the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty
payments must be paid within 60 days following each date on
which you prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your
periodic tax returns. Royalty payments should be clearly marked
as such and sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation at the address specified in Section 4, “Information

about donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation.”
• You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who
notifies you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt
that s/he does not agree to the terms of the full Project
Gutenberg™ License. You must require such a user to return or
destroy all copies of the works possessed in a physical medium
and discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of
Project Gutenberg™ works.
• You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of
any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in
the electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90
days of receipt of the work.
• You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free
distribution of Project Gutenberg™ works.
1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg™
electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set
forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from
the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the manager of
the Project Gutenberg™ trademark. Contact the Foundation as set
forth in Section 3 below.
1.F.
1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend
considerable effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe
and proofread works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating
the Project Gutenberg™ collection. Despite these efforts, Project
Gutenberg™ electronic works, and the medium on which they may
be stored, may contain “Defects,” such as, but not limited to,
incomplete, inaccurate or corrupt data, transcription errors, a
copyright or other intellectual property infringement, a defective or

damaged disk or other medium, a computer virus, or computer
codes that damage or cannot be read by your equipment.
1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for
the “Right of Replacement or Refund” described in paragraph 1.F.3,
the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the
Project Gutenberg™ trademark, and any other party distributing a
Project Gutenberg™ electronic work under this agreement, disclaim
all liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal
fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR
NEGLIGENCE, STRICT LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR
BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH
1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE TRADEMARK
OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL
NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT,
CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF
YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.
1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you
discover a defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving
it, you can receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by
sending a written explanation to the person you received the work
from. If you received the work on a physical medium, you must
return the medium with your written explanation. The person or
entity that provided you with the defective work may elect to provide
a replacement copy in lieu of a refund. If you received the work
electronically, the person or entity providing it to you may choose to
give you a second opportunity to receive the work electronically in
lieu of a refund. If the second copy is also defective, you may
demand a refund in writing without further opportunities to fix the
problem.
1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth
in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you ‘AS-IS’, WITH NO
OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,

INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF
MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE.
1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied
warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages.
If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement violates the
law of the state applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be
interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted
by the applicable state law. The invalidity or unenforceability of any
provision of this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions.
1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation,
the trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation,
anyone providing copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in
accordance with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with
the production, promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg™
electronic works, harmless from all liability, costs and expenses,
including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of the
following which you do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this or
any Project Gutenberg™ work, (b) alteration, modification, or
additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg™ work, and (c) any
Defect you cause.
Section 2. Information about the Mission
of Project Gutenberg™
Project Gutenberg™ is synonymous with the free distribution of
electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of
computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers.
It exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and
donations from people in all walks of life.
Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the
assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg™’s
goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg™ collection will

remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a
secure and permanent future for Project Gutenberg™ and future
generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help,
see Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at
www.gutenberg.org.
Section 3. Information about the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation
The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non-profit
501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the
state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal
Revenue Service. The Foundation’s EIN or federal tax identification
number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg
Literary Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent
permitted by U.S. federal laws and your state’s laws.
The Foundation’s business office is located at 809 North 1500 West,
Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact links and up
to date contact information can be found at the Foundation’s website
and official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact
Section 4. Information about Donations to
the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation
Project Gutenberg™ depends upon and cannot survive without
widespread public support and donations to carry out its mission of
increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can
be freely distributed in machine-readable form accessible by the
widest array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many

small donations ($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to
maintaining tax exempt status with the IRS.
The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating
charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United
States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a
considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and
keep up with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in
locations where we have not received written confirmation of
compliance. To SEND DONATIONS or determine the status of
compliance for any particular state visit www.gutenberg.org/donate.
While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where
we have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no
prohibition against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in
such states who approach us with offers to donate.
International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make
any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from
outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff.
Please check the Project Gutenberg web pages for current donation
methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of
other ways including checks, online payments and credit card
donations. To donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate.
Section 5. General Information About
Project Gutenberg™ electronic works
Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project
Gutenberg™ concept of a library of electronic works that could be
freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and
distributed Project Gutenberg™ eBooks with only a loose network of
volunteer support.

Project Gutenberg™ eBooks are often created from several printed
editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in
the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not
necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper
edition.
Most people start at our website which has the main PG search
facility: www.gutenberg.org.
This website includes information about Project Gutenberg™,
including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how
to subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks.

Welcome to our website – the perfect destination for book lovers and
knowledge seekers. We believe that every book holds a new world,
offering opportunities for learning, discovery, and personal growth.
That’s why we are dedicated to bringing you a diverse collection of
books, ranging from classic literature and specialized publications to
self-development guides and children's books.
More than just a book-buying platform, we strive to be a bridge
connecting you with timeless cultural and intellectual values. With an
elegant, user-friendly interface and a smart search system, you can
quickly find the books that best suit your interests. Additionally,
our special promotions and home delivery services help you save time
and fully enjoy the joy of reading.
Join us on a journey of knowledge exploration, passion nurturing, and
personal growth every day!
ebookbell.com

The Wellconnected Community A Networking Approach To Community Development Alison Gilchrist

More Related Content

Similar to The Wellconnected Community A Networking Approach To Community Development Alison Gilchrist (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

The Wellconnected Community A Networking Approach To Community Development Alison Gilchrist