Community development work and local development is an increasingly relevant policy issue in Europe. It often depends on the specific regional context, with local actors formed by the political structures of the twentieth century. Whereas community development is an integrated part of local and regional governments in countries of Western Europe, it is not as widespread in the new EU member states, especially in post-communist countries. Many people in these societies still strongly mistrust and avoid joining formal organisations, even in the newly free and democratic setting (Howard, 2003).

Slovakia is still going through years of transition—trying to understand community work as a benefit to local governance and the development of civil society (Střelcová, 2015). In Slovakia, we observe in practice several fundamental strategies of work with communities to address their issues: social service delivery, advocacy, and community development. Community organizing (the fourth strategy of community work) is still very rarely used in this country, even though it can be a particularly powerful approach to social change because it is based on democratically controlled community institutions (Markovič Baluchová, 2017).

The aim of this paper is to identify the principles of community work in Slovakia and to analyse community development challenges, as well as to propose specific solutions that can overcome current barriers.

Theory of community development

Different traditions of community development exist across continents. According to the International Association for Community Development (IACD, 2015), community development is “a set of practices and methods that focus on harnessing the innate abilities and potential that exist in all human communities to become active agents in their own development and to organize themselves to address key issues and concerns that they share.”

The community development process starts with disseminating information and animating the community. It continues with the identification of needs and resources, as well as the identification and training of local leaders. Finally, it leads to the design of a plan and to subsequent evaluation procedures (Střelcová, 2015). In other words, people come together in collective action to transform the world (“collaboration”), leadership aims at uniting the oppressed (“uniting for liberation”), the oppressed organize for their own action (“organization”), and dialogical cultural action aims at social transformation based on the identification of “generating subjects” (Freire, 2005). The core of community development theory is respect for people’s needs and a focus on potential, not on problems (Střelcová, 2015).

Types of work in communities or with communities

To analyse community work in particular groups, the distinction between community development work and other types of work in communities must be made. Community development can be clearly distinguished from social work by the definition that describes community development as a “participation model that empowers citizens and is aimed at increasing citizens’ power in the areas that influence their lives and that is also supportive of people of all ages in their active citizenship” (Guerra, 2012).

Strieženec (2001) notes that “the use of social work with community is in some cases inevitable and in some areas seems like the only acceptable form.” However, he argues that if “good political, social, health, or educational measures are not adopted by the community, they do not have a chance to meet the anticipated outcome” (Strieženec, 2001). Based on Strieženec’s conclusion, we can distinguish the main difference between social work with communities, social community work, and community work in neighborhoods or community development work. This difference lies in whether the work is done for the community, as in social work practice (and therefore with a higher risk of neglect), or with the community, as in community work practice. Košková and Antalová (2003) describe work “with community and for community” as a development process based on equal partnership among all participants, enabling the exchange of knowledge, experiences, and skills with the aim of producing change.

Compared with advocacy, community development supports and draws on human capital. It strengthens the process of skills and knowledge development of individuals, groups, and the community as a whole, which is the outcome of an informal learning process conditioned by people’s activity in the community. Community development works with the potential already existing within the community—the abilities, skills, knowledge, and capacity of its inhabitants, association members, and institutional representatives (Střelcová, 2015).

The main goal of community development is to build active and sustainable communities based on social justice and mutual respect. Its role is also to prevent and remove the barriers that stop people from participating in issues affecting their quality of life. Community development is meant to help individuals and the community understand their problems, educate and motivate people toward self-help and independence, and support the development of community life (Husárik, Miková, 2012). The foundation of the other type of community work—community organizing—is people with a shared problem who define their community, decide the problems they wish to address, the solutions they want to pursue, and the methods they will use to reach their goals (Markovič Baluchová, 2017).

Community work should not be identified with social work with communities because it does not have the character of social work; rather, it works with the potential of the community. Community development is grounded in sustainability and engages the community in development and planning processes (Henderson, Thomas, 2007).

Community participation in Slovakia

Participation is central to community development. According to Aref and Redzuan, the highest level is referred to as genuine participation, which is more focused on empowerment. At this level, people from the community have power and control over the decision-making process. The intermediate level is labelled symbolic participation. At this level, people from the community are consulted and act as partners in projects and programmes through regular interactions. The lowest level of community participation is referred to as non-participation. At this level, members of the community are only informed about plans, decisions, and actions. In addition, in non-participation there is a degree of manipulation of the community for power and control (Aref, Redzuan, 2009). All these levels have been observed within communities shaped by disadvantaged groups in Slovakia in the last 15 years.

Building collective action plays a central role in theoretical contributions from the field of community development. Therefore, participation, capacity building, engagement, and community empowerment clearly find their roots in these theoretical traditions. Community engagement strategies guide people on how to engage with their communities and organisations in provided services.

In Slovakia, the number of NGOs has multiplied geometrically, and so has the growth of third-sector employment. However, in Scandinavian countries, the number of NGOs is more than three times higher (Bútora, Bútorová, Strečanský, 2012). In the period when Slovakia became an independent state by separating Czechoslovakia into two states, there were only around 6,000 nongovernmental organizations in the whole country (Dudeková, 1998). Two decades later, this number had risen to more than 32,000 NGOs (Bútora, Bútorová, Strečanský, 2012).

Presence of Community centers for disadvantaged groups

Community centers in Slovakia, as well as in other post-communist countries of Eastern Europe, are still a relatively unknown and new phenomenon. The first community centers were founded in 2003 through the project “Support for community center’s creation in Slovak republic.” Financed through the Phare Program as part of EU funds, the centers were meant to serve as a tool for integration of local Roma communities (Korpesio, 2012). In recent years there has been expansion in the practice of centers aimed at supporting marginalized groups (especially Roma communities). In general, such community centers are intended to create conditions for daily child and family support, career and employment counselling, educational activities, and other supportive services. By 2012, these community centers in Slovakia had reached 100 (Korpesio, 2012). In September 2014, the National Project “Community Centers” established standards for community centers in Slovakia (Implementing Agency for Operational Programme Employment and Social Inclusion – IA OPESI, 2014). The mission of the designated centers is clearly defined as “a response to gaps in community development and social integration at the local level.” The Standards focus on residents of marginalized Roma communities, unemployed, segregated and isolated groups, children and youth at risk, socially excluded individuals, and people with low incomes or living below the poverty line, and define that “the creation of the community centers in our area is mainly connected with the Roma communities” (IA OPESI, 2014).

Community work in neighborhoods has an inclusive character. According to the definition in these Standards, community work is meant to “act preventively toward socially disadvantaged groups of citizens, as well as citizens at risk of social exclusion, and thereby prevent the emergence of urgent crisis situations.” Community centers build bridges between majority and minority populations through shared dialogue and activities (IA OPESI, 2014).

A community center represents a space for citizens’ meetings where people can better express their ideas about the community and thereby contribute to building civil society.

Challenges of community development

There are many challenges (in the Slovak context, mostly barriers) that can impede both community engagement and community involvement. The identified barriers (Dukeshire and Thurlow, 2002; Střelcová, 2015) to community engagement are as follows: 1. Low sense of belonging; 2. Weak social networks; 3. No or negative neighborhood relations; 4. Inactive street life and limited opportunities for community interaction and inadequate, inaccessible public spaces; 5. Lack of access to information; 6. Inadequate or poor living conditions; 7. Low awareness of local organizations and limited associative life; 8. Limited community resources; 9. Weak or non-existing volunteer habits; 10. High residential turnover; 11. No or few expectations tied to the neighborhood; 12. No or minimal positive changes perceived by community members in the neighborhood; 13. Inadequate social infrastructure and services and constraints on walkability; 14. Various forms of tension within the community; 15. Lack of understanding or confusion about the role of the community and neighborhood center; 16. Underestimation of the value of local participation and community engagement; 17. Low personal interest in local issues, local governance, and representation; 18. Lack of trust in local representation and administration; 19. Historically negative relationships with government institutions; 20. Homogeneity of the neighborhood community.

Conclusion and potential solutions for future

Community development challenges in Slovakia are often similar to those across the whole CEE region. Slovak people struggle with trust issues in both administrative and political representation, as well as toward neighbors and other community members. They are also still passive in volunteering and community organizations. In order to promote and sustain sustainable communities, after analysing the current state it is important to take into account the specific character of communities and the needs of local citizens, who often include vulnerable groups. For successful community work in any community or neighborhood, the most important condition is an existing group identity and the fact that it is already formed and self-identifying (Střelcová, 2015).

The above 20 barriers represent limits to community work in specific groups. All of them are usually present in vulnerable communities, at least to some extent. To move forward and overcome them, proposing community facilitators can provide a way forward (Dukeshire, Thurlow, 2002; Střelcová, 2015). The proposed facilitators are: 1. Incentives and positive expectations; 2. Social capital and community resources; 3. Trusted group leaders and local representatives; 4. Regularity of activities; 5. Sense of community; 6. Strengthened social networks and positive neighborhood relations; 7. Informedness; 8. Associative life; 9. Strong volunteer habits; 10. Valued local participation and community engagement.

These factors can help build communities that are more inclusive, cohesive, vibrant, and safe. Community organizations with their community centers play a critical role in building linkages among people and groups, supporting community capacity building, and giving voice to vulnerable groups.

Author: PhDr. et RNDr. Božena Markovič Baluchová, PhD. Department of Development and Environmental Studies, Faculty of Science, Palacky University in Olomouc References

  1. Aref, F., Redzuan, M., 2009: Assessing the level of community participation as a component of community capacity building for tourism development, Europ. J. Soc. Sc., 8 (1), 68-75 p.
  2. Bútorová, Z., Bútora, M., Strečanský, B., 2012: Aktívne občianstvo a mimovládny sektor na Slovensku: Trendy a perspektívy, Bratislava: Včelí dom. 52 pp., ISBN 978-80-970885-0-7.
  3. Dudeková, G., 2014: Dobrovoľné združovanie na Slovensku v minulosti. [Online: http://www.dejiny.sk/eknihy/gd.htm].
  4. Dukeshire, S., Thurlow, J., 2002: Challenges and Barriers to Community Participation in Policy Development, Rural Communities Impacting Policy Project, Atlantic Health Promotion Research Centre at Dalhousie University and the Coastal Communities Network, Nova Scotia. 1-4 pp., ISBN 0-9780913-2-9.
  5. Freie, P., 2005: Pedagogy of the oppressed (30th Ed), NY: Continuum, 181 p. [Online: http://www.msu.ac.zw/elearning/material/1335344125freire_pedagogy_of_the_oppresed.pdf].
  6. Guerra, S., 2012: Keeping the Community Whole Unit for sustainability Sagene municiple district, District Sagene Municipality of Oslo, Norway.
  7. Henderson, P., Thomas, D.N., 2007: Skills in Neighbourhood work, (Translation). Nitra: Centrum komunitního rozvoja. ISBN 978-80-969638-4-3.
  8. Howard, M.M., 2003: The Weakness of Civil Society in Post-Communist Europe, Cambridge: University Press, 27 pp. [Online: http://assets.cambridge.org/97805218/12238/sample/9780521812238ws.pdf].
  9. Husárik, M., Miková J., 2011: Správa o činnosti komunitného centra Sásová za obdobie apríl 2011 až december 2011, Mesto Basnká Bystrica. [Online: http://www.banskabystrica.sk/index.php?id_menu=63165].
  10. Košková, Š., Antalová, I., 2003: Príručka objavovateľa stratených území, Bratislava: Nadácia Milana Šimečku, 215 p., EAN 9788089008155.
  11. Markovič Baluchová, B., 2017: Presence of Community organizing in Slovak practice, Bratislava: Media about Development. [Online: https://mediaaboutdevelopment.wordpress.com/2017/04/20/presence-of-community-organizing-in-slovak-practise/].
  12. Korpesio, C., 2012: Komunitné centrá na Slovensku. Bratislava: Prohuman. [Online: http://www.prohuman.sk/socialna-praca/komunitne-centra-na-slovensku].
  13. Strieženec, Š., 2001: Úvod do štúdia sociálnej práce. Trnava: Tripsoft. 19 pp., ISBN 80-968294-6-7.
  14. Střelcová, V., 2015: Komunitná práca v mestských susedstvách (Prípadová štúdia sídliska Sásová na Slovensku a Telheiras v Portugalsku), Bratislava: FSEV UK, Ústav verejnej politiky, 146 p.