Changes and challenges of Slovak community centers under the influence of work with vulnerable groups

Changes and challenges of Slovak community centers under the influence of work with vulnerable groups Local development, together with the associated community work with disadvantaged population groups, has become an increasingly discussed issue across Europe. The concrete development of development policies often depends on the specific region and on its major actors, which have shaped the political environment in the last century. While community development is an integrated part of local and regional governance in Western Europe, in the new member states of the European Union (especially in post-communist countries) this may not be taken for granted. Most people in societies that experienced totalitarian rule are still deeply distrustful of work in communities and neighbourhoods, and strongly avoid becoming involved in any formal organisations, even though these now operate in a free and democratic setting.1

The Slovak Republic (SR) is still going through a period of transformation, trying to understand community work as a contribution to local self-government and to the development of civil society.2 When we speak about the existence of community centers in Slovakia, we have to speak about operating in the shadow of SR’s post-communist history.

In the Slovak context, several basic strategies of working with communities to address their local problems can be observed in practice: provision of social services (social work), advocacy, and community development. Community organizing3 (as a potential fourth strategy4 for work with communities or neighbourhoods) is still used very infrequently in this country, even though it could be a very effective and low-cost tool for achieving social change in a democratic society, which SR is.

The number of NGOs increased dramatically after the breakup of Czechoslovakia, as did employment in the third sector. Nevertheless, for example, in Scandinavian countries the number of NGOs is more than three times higher.5 In the period of the formation of independent SR there were only about 6,000 NGOs in the whole country.6 This number grew to more than 32,000 NGOs two decades later.7 Not all of them, however, can be regarded as community organisations, and not all, understandably, work with vulnerable groups. The number of functioning community centers in all of Slovakia is around one hundred.

The aim of this paper is (based on a literature review, participant observation, and consultations with staff of the Centre for Community Organizing – CKO in Banská Bystrica) to identify types and principles of community work in Slovak community centers and to analyse changes and challenges, or obstacles, of community work. On that basis, it will then be possible to propose concrete solutions that could overcome the aforementioned obstacles.

In order to analyse community work for specific groups of the population, it is necessary to distinguish between several kinds of work in communities. Community development can be clearly distinguished from social work by a definition that sees community development as a model of participation that engages and strengthens the position of citizens in areas that affect their lives, and that also supports people equally in their active citizenship.8

Strieženec9 distinguishes between social work in communities, community work in neighbourhoods, and community development. The difference lies in whether the work is carried out for the community, as is the case in social work, or together with the community, as in community work (and community development). Košková and Antalová10, when discussing work with community (as opposed to work for community), draw attention to a development process that is based on equal partnership among all stakeholders, enabling an exchange of knowledge, experience and skills in order to move towards social change.

Compared with advocacy, community development both supports and involves human capital. It enhances skill development and knowledge growth among individuals, groups and the whole community, which is the outcome of non-formal education driven by people acting directly in the community. Community development works with the potential that already exists in the community—the capacities, skills, knowledge and capacities of residents, organisation members and institutional representatives.11

The basis of another type of community work, community organizing, is, according to Střelcová (2015) and Janta (2016), that people (who have a pressing problem within the community or neighbourhood) claim that problem and define their community; they shape, through structure, some kind of organization—they jointly decide on which problems they want to address; they propose measures they want to carry out; they create an action plan; they choose the methods they will use to achieve their goals. Community work (community development or organizing) does not have the character of social work, where social workers solve the problems of disadvantaged groups on their behalf, but works with the potential of the community, which has the capacity to co-own problem-solving. Community development is especially meaningful in terms of sustainability and involves the community in the process of development and planning.12

Participation is central to both community development and community organizing. According to Aref and Redzuan13, three types of participation can be recognized: real, active participation; symbolic participation; and nonparticipation. All types have been observed over the last 15 years within communities built by disadvantaged groups in Slovakia.

Centers supporting the integration of local Roma communities

Community centers in Slovakia, as in other post-communist countries of Eastern Europe, are still a relatively unknown and new phenomenon. Among us, they are primarily associated with support for minorities. A community center, as an institutional facility, mainly provides primary programmes that respond to current problems and needs of the local community. At present, the operation of community centers is carried by organizations from the non-profit sector and church organizations. To a lesser extent, community centers are also operated by some local governments.

One of the solutions offered for the issue of marginalized Roma communities in SR, which strives to include a comprehensive approach, was precisely the establishment and operation of community centers. There are currently around one hundred such centers across Slovakia. Their work is carried out for the benefit of the whole society.14

The first ten such community centers in SR were officially established in 2003 as part of the project “Support for establishing community centers in the Slovak Republic” as a tool for integrating local Roma communities. They received financial support from European Union funds through the PHARE programme and served as support for integrating mostly segregated or separate local Roma communities.15 In 2012, there were already over 45 Roma community centers as a type of social innovation in SR, and the development of these centers was greatly helped by the Foundation for Civil Society.16

The National Project Community Centers (NP KC) was aimed mainly at groups of socially excluded people or people at risk of social exclusion with an emphasis on marginalized Roma communities, for which it was characteristic that they were unable to participate in social, economic, political, and cultural life due to concrete factors (low income, poor health, inadequate education, weak contact with the majority population, discrimination, etc.). The project was implemented in 2014–15 by the Implementing Agency of the Ministry of Labour, Social Affairs and Family of the SR: the Implementing Agency for the Operational Programme Employment and Social Inclusion (formerly the Social Development Fund).17 Community work in community centers focused primarily on bringing socially excluded people back into the mainstream of social life. Within NP KC, 168 community centers were supported (4 in Trnava Region, 14 in Nitra, 6 in Trenčín, 36 in Banskobystrica, 11 in Žilina, 56 in Prešov and 40 in Košice Region). Nearly 650 employees worked in these centers.18

Transformation of cultural organizations into social change centers

Work in communities or neighbourhoods is undoubtedly inclusive. Community centers create links between majority and minority populations through joint dialogue and activities. Of course, even before 2003 in SR, communities and communal groups with more or less formal organization (with their members, mission and agenda) were already functioning. This did not involve only people from marginalized environments. Predominantly church organisations, individual parishes and branches of the Slovak Catholic Charity organized, gathered or coordinated youth communities (Christian youth associations at churches), which, with the help of priests and members of religious orders, were engaged in volunteering, youth leadership development, missionary and charitable work, and helping those in need. By building membership, following their goals and preparing agendas, these communities showed (often more unconsciously) features of community organizing.

In the last few years, several cultural organizations have also appeared in SR that work with communities and use their potential in this way. These include, for example, Nová Cvernovka in the Bratislava region, Centrum pre nezávislú kultúru – Záhrada in the Banskobystrica region, Nádvorie in Trnava, Stanica-Zárečie in Žilina, Tabačka in Košice, and others. Their existence is partly funded from municipal or county budgets, but primarily thanks to private donors and grants from domestic funds and international foundations. Most of them, however, recently modified or expanded their cultural scope in response to a change in political climate and the rise of extremism in SR, adding a social activism dimension aimed at societal change. Especially before the recent regional elections, staff and volunteers of these centres, out of concern over rising nationalism, disinformation, propaganda and anti-minority hatred, organized themselves into units that, with the support of CKO, held rallies “Nie v našom meste” in squares, hosted discussions at universities, and encouraged first-time young voters to vote. In this way, they used (mostly intuitively) principles of community organizing as a possible tool for social change in society. After several weeks of protests and the achievement of the goal (a won campaign), however, the informal community of activated people dispersed—their willingness to participate in community transformation had not been captured and used and had not been organized.

Besides these cultural centers and the more than one hundred community centers mentioned above, which were created on the initiative of the National Program for Community Centers, there are also official centers that have operated and continue to operate successfully outside this program’s framework. Archdiocese Charity Košice, as a church organization, has operated two community centers in eastern Slovakia for several years (in Lipany and Stropkov), and Človek v ohrození, as well as several other NGOs, also coordinates centers working with Roma communities. The Association for Culture, Education and Communication—ACEC and CKO prepare community workers, organizers and leaders for their work in communities. ETP Slovakia no longer operates only community centers in eastern Slovakia serving the Roma population, but also works on integrating refugees and asylum seekers into society. Clients go through educational programmes (practical skills training, after-school activities, prevention programmes, lifelong learning, vocational training), programmes that create jobs, and receive social, health, financial and legal counselling regardless of age. Humanitarian and food assistance and micro-loans are also directed to people in need.

Pitfalls of development and organizing in community centers

Despite functioning examples from practice, there are many challenges (in the Slovak context mainly barriers) that can hinder the engagement and involvement of community in what is happening in their neighbourhood or in the city as a whole. According to Dukeshire, Thurlow19 and Střelcová20, these obstacles can be divided as follows: 1. Insufficient sense of belonging; 2. Weak social networks; 3. No or negative neighbourhood relations; 4. Inactive life in the neighbourhood and few opportunities for interaction within the community, as well as a lack of appropriate and accessible public spaces for implementation; 5. Insufficient access to information; 6. Poor or inadequate living conditions; 7. Low awareness of the activities of local organizations; 8. Limited community resources; 9. Weak or nonexistent volunteering habits; 10. High population turnover; 11. No or only minimal expectations from the community within the neighbourhood; 12. No or minimal positive changes recorded by community members in the neighbourhood; 13. Inadequate social infrastructure and services; 14. A certain kind of tension in the community; 15. Insufficient understanding or confusion about the role of the community or neighbourhood center; 16. Undervaluing the value of local participation and community engagement in decision-making processes; 17. Low personal interest in local issues, local public administration and representation; 18. Lack of trust in local councils and local self-government; 19. Historically given negative relations with state institutions; 20. Homogeneity of the neighbourhood community.

An expert team from the Institute for Public Affairs21, which has long dealt with participation, identifies several additional areas where civic activism and activity in community or neighbourhood life has shown a problematic trend, or decline. Alongside positive developments, such as the growth of urban activism and increased public support for giving, a so-called internet activism has also developed; through social media, it does not only mobilize citizens in support of “good” civil society, but can also mobilize proponents of ideological intolerance and, not rarely, extremist anti-democratic initiatives.22

Recommendations for practice: Existence of facilitators and capacity-building

The two dozen barriers mentioned above limit community work in concrete communities of people. All of the listed obstacles occur, to a greater or lesser extent, in vulnerable population groups. A solution for the future (overcoming pitfalls and advancing the work) may be the proposal of certain facilitators23, that is, intermediary elements24 within the community, among which we can include: 1. Incentives and positive expectations; 2. Social capital and community resources; 3. Credible and trusted group leaders and local representatives; 4. Regularity of activities; 5. The meaning of community existence; 6. Strengthened social networks and positive neighbour relations; 7. Being well informed; 8. Active life linked to the neighbourhood; 9. Strong volunteer habits; 10. Active and beneficial local participation in decision-making, community engagement.

These factors can help in building communities that can thus be more inclusive, more cohesive, livelier and safer. Organizations with their community centers can then create connections between individuals and groups, support capacity-building, and give voice to vulnerable population groups.

Currently, several capacity-building and education programmes for community organizers and young leaders exist, with emphasis precisely on socially excluded groups and representatives of minorities in SR. These include scholarships for individuals through Via Foundation and CKO (in cooperation with the Great Lakes Consortium for International Training and Development, with the possibility of internships in renowned American community organizations via the Professional Fellows programme), or a grant scheme for specific organisational projects through the Open Society Foundation, the International Visegrad Fund, and several embassies in SR.

Conclusions

The main goal of community work (especially community development) is to build active and sustainable communities, based on social justice and mutual respect. In addition to this task, it is also about preventing and removing barriers that prevent people from participating in solving issues that affect the quality of their lives.25

The challenges within local development and its associated community work that we face in Slovakia are very often common across the whole Central and Eastern European region. Slovak citizens are dealing with trust or mistrust in both administration and political representation of their interests. They remain passive in volunteering and also in membership in community organizations. In this paper, twenty barriers to community work with vulnerable population groups were identified and ten possible facilitators were proposed as mediating ways to overcome these obstacles.

After analysis of the current state (and with the aim of supporting and ensuring sustainably stable communities), it is important to consider the individual character of communities and the concrete needs of local citizens, who are often among the vulnerable. For successful community work in any type of community or neighbourhood, the most important thing is group identity and the fact that it is built and defined by the community itself.26 If people learn to identify problems in their own communities and neighbourhoods, name them, and jointly agree on how to proceed in solving them, they can achieve the desired change (without expending unnecessary amounts of money). National training of community organizers and leadership preparation, for example under the Banská Bystrica Center for Community Organizing (in cooperation with the European Community Organizing Network—ECON—and the Great Lakes Consortium for International Training and Development), which also address community development, but primarily aim to promote community organizing as the most effective and accessible method for achieving social change in society.

Author: PhDr. et RNDr. Božena Markovič Baluchová, PhD. Department of Development and Environmental Studies, Palacký 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), pp. 68-75.
2. Bútorová, Z., Bútora, M., Strečanský, B., 2012: Aktívne občianstvo a mimovládny sektor na Slovensku: Trendy a perspektívy, Bratislava: Včelí dom. 52 s., ISBN 978-80-970885-0-7.
3. Bútora, M. et al., 2011: Štúdia trendov vývoja občianskej spoločnosti na Slovensku, Bratislava: IVO, CpF, PDCS, 68 s. [online: http://www.ivo.sk/7497/en/studies-and-papers/studia-trendov-vyvoja-obcianskej-spolocnosti-na-slovensku]
4. Dudeková, G., 2014: Dobrovoľné združovanie na Slovensku v minulosti. [Online: http://www.dejiny.sk/eknihy/gd.htm].
5. 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. pp. 1-4., ISBN 0-9780913-2-9.
6. Freie, P., 2005: Pedagogy of the oppressed (30th Ed), NY: Continuum, 181 s. [Online: http://www.msu.ac.zw/elearning/material/1335344125freire_pedagogy_of_the_oppresed.pdf].
7. Guerra, S., 2012: Keeping the Community Whole Unit for sustainability Sagene municiple district, District Sagene Municipality of Oslo, Norway.
8. Henderson, P., Thomas, D.N., 2007: Skills in Neighbourhood work, (Translation). Nitra: Centrum komunitního rozvoja. ISBN 978-80-969638-4-3.
9. Howard, M.M., 2003: The Weakness of Civil Society in Post-Communist Europe, Cambridge: University Press, p. 27. [Online: http://assets.cambridge.org/97805218/12238/sample/9780521812238ws.pdf].
10. 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].
11. Implementačná agentúra Ministerstva práce, sociálnych vecí a rodiny SR, 2014: Prezentácia činnosti Národného program Komunitné centrá. [Online: https://www.ia.gov.sk/data/files/f773cc6e1a7786b34d442de51c13c545
12. Janto, J., 2016: Komunitný rozvoj na sídliskách. In: Etnologické rozpravy 1/2016, Ročník XXIII, 2016, č. 1, Banská Bystrica: Národopisná spoločnosť Slovenska. s. 7-23., ISSN 1335-5074.
13. Košková, Š., Antalová, I., 2003: Príručka objavovateľa stratených území, Bratislava: Nadácia Milana Šimečku, 215 s., EAN 9788089008155.
14. 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/].
15. Korpesio, C., 2012: Komunitné centrá na Slovensku. Bratislava: Prohuman. [Online: http://www.prohuman.sk/socialna-praca/komunitne-centra-na-slovensku].
16. Strieženec, Š., 2001: Úvod do štúdia sociálnej práce. Trnava: Tripsoft. s. 19., ISBN 80-968294-6-7.
17. 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 s.

1 Howard, 2003 2 Střelcová, 2015 3 Janto, 2016 4 Markovič Baluchová, 2017 5 Bútora a kol., 2012 6 Dudeková, 1998 7 Bútora a kol., 2012 8 Guerra, 2012 9 Strieženec, 2001 10 Košková a Antalová, 2003 11 Střelcová, 2015 12 Henderson, Thomas, 2007 13 Aref, Redzuan, 2009 14 Korpesio, 2012 15 Korpesio, 2012 16 Bútora a kol., 2012 17 IA ZaSI, 2014 18 IA ZaSI, 2014 19 Dukeshire a Thurlow, 2002 20 Střelcová, 2015 21 Bútora a kol., 2012 22 Bútora a kol., 2011 23 Dukeshire, Thurlow, 2002 24 Střelcová, 2015 25 Husárik, Miková, 2012 26 Střelcová, 2015