Fall 2019 Volume 12, no 1 Sustainable Communities Review Volume 12, no. 1 Contents From the Editor 1 Articles Youth Corner Sustainability in community organizing: 3 Energy efficient aquaponics 70 lessons from the community organisers by Sheldon Aminzadeh, Emilio programme in England (2011 – 2015) Roman, Jesse Castro, & by Andie Reynolds & Lucy Grimshaw Hanyue Jiang Sustainability as livability: Two 21 Ethiopia 72 community case studies in East Texas by Brook Lakew Tilahun by Forbes, W., B. M. Murphy, M. S., et el. 74 Majete: More than family by Brucktawit Endashaw Application of nanotechnology in water 44 and wastewater treatment: A short The Effect of Three Different 76 review Plants: Scindapsus Aureus, by Sujata Mandal, Sheldon Q. Shi Chlorophytum Comosum, and Philodendron on Indoor Air Quality by Samara Amin Postmodern Prometheus: A discourse 50 analysis of energy dominance by Adam Briggle Copyright@2017 Sustainable Communities Review Sustainable Communities Review ARTICLE Sustainability in community organizing: lessons from the Community Organisers Programme in England (2011 – 2015) Andie Reynolds & Lucy Grimshaw Department of Social Work Education and Community Wellbeing, Northumbria University, Newcastle Upon Tyne, UK. Correspondence to: [email protected] This article presents findings from an impact evaluation case study of the UK Coalition government’s Community Organisers Programme (2011-2015). Whilst the program achieved some of its objectives, case study participants raised concerns of how sustainability was understood and practised. Five elements undermined the program’s sustainability: (i) a weak definition of sustainability; (ii) the short duration of the training contract; (iii) an over-emphasis on autonomy; (iv) insufficient training and support for volunteer community organizers, and (v) a lack of progression opportunities. The article concludes the lack of conceptualization of sustainability within the program, and the Coalition government’s commitment to austerity, enfeebled a trailblazing experimentation with state-funded community organizing. Introduction This article assesses the ambiguous This followed a hung parliament general use of sustainability throughout the election result five days earlier. They Community Organisers Programme (COP) quickly announced a program of public (2011-2015) in England, which was sector reform and austerity to reduce the introduced by the UK Coalition 10% deficit they inherited from the 2007/8 government (2010-2015). On May 12th 2010, financial crisis (Taylor-Gooby & Stoker, the Conservative Party and the Liberal 2011). Prior to the election, the Democrats formed a coalition government. Conservative Party leader was delivering speeches about the need to reduce big 3 Sustainable Communities Review government by creating a Big Society government budgets alone (Clayton et al., (Cameron, 2009). This became a significant 2016). This resulted in the closure of two policy driver for the COP. Big Society was hundred and eighty-five public bodies, introduced as the antithesis of the previous including the Community Development New Labour government’s ‘excessive’ Foundation and the Sustainable public spending, bureaucracy and Development Commission. The previous unwelcome interference (Alcock, 2010). Big New Labour administration set-up, and Society offered citizens, communities, the funded, both to independently monitor voluntary and community sector (VCS), and advise UK governments on their and the private sector more opportunities progress in community and sustainable to run British public services without development (Levitt, 2015; SDC, 2010). In excessive red tape (Alcock, 2010; Cabinet 2011, the Coalition government assigned Office, 2010a). Three policy offshoots - the Department for Environment, Food social action, localism and social enterprise and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) to mainstream – germinated from this overarching policy sustainable development and embed it “at agenda (Davoudi & Madanipour, 2013; the heart of each Government department” Dean, 2013; Thornham, 2015). The (Cabinet Office, 2011b, p. 3) whilst also Localism Act 2011 assisted communities, reducing DEFRA’s budget by 30% the VCS and the private sector “…to take (Wheeler, 2015). over public services, community assets and The Department of Communities influence planning and development” (My and Local Government was the hardest-hit Community, 2012, p. 1; Featherstone et al., department with its budget slashed by 51% 2013). Thus, public sector, VCS and private over the five-year span. This resulted in sector professionals, and voluntary groups local governments in England making one- could legitimately ‘bid’ to take over council third to one-half of its public sector assets – including community youth and workers redundant (Bailey et al., 2015; children’s centres – and galvanize social Wheeler, 2015). Local government cuts also action to run them as social enterprises. affected funding available to the VCS, Social action was defined as: “… people ensuing unprecedented losses in giving what they have, be that their time, community development and community their money or their assets, knowledge and work infrastructures in both sectors skills, to support good causes and make (Clayton et al, 2016; Lowndes & life better for all” (Cabinet Office, 2010b, p. McCaughie, 2013). In response, the 4). Coalition government invested over £40 The adoption of austerity as the million in volunteering and social action Coalition government’s principal economic projects, with half allocated to the COP strategy steered these agendas. Austerity (Cabinet Office, 2013; Fisher & Dimberg, proposed £81 billion in spending cuts over 2016). five years, with £53 million cut from This article presents findings from a government departments and local case study of the COP in one local 4 Sustainable Communities Review authority in England. It concludes that the RE:generate’s training had yet to be tested program’s weak conceptualization of on such a large scale (Imagine, 2014; 2015a). sustainability – driven by the Coalition TCOs were based in local VCS government’s unwavering commitment to organisations known as host organisations, austerity and public sector cuts - and allocated to small geographical compromised its impact and legacy. To ‘patches’ in low income neighbourhoods in achieve this, this article divides into five England (Cameron et al, 2015). Their aim sections. The first introduces the COP, its was to work “…closely with communities objectives, methodology and to identify local leaders, projects and understanding of sustainability. The opportunities, and empower the local second presents an overview of how community to improve their local area” sustainability and sustainable (Cabinet Office, 2011a, np). development came to underpin The COP’s methodology fused the community organizing and development works of Saul Alinsky, Paulo Freire, methodologies. The third then discusses Edward Chambers and Clodomir Santos de our methodology. The fourth section Morais who set out to resist and challenge presents the findings and argues that five state authority and power. This was elements of the COP undermined how trailblazing for a national, state-funded sustainability was understood and program (Fisher & Dimberg, 2016). The practised. The final section concludes that COP also incorporated “…long traditions the COP’s problematic interpretation of of English radicalism and self-help” sustainability – driven by the Coalition (Locality, 2010, p. 2). Although community government’s pledge to austerity - organizing is traditionally associated with enfeebled a trailblazing experimentation the left, it has a range of theoretical with state-funded community organizing. underpinnings and practices across the political spectrum (Fisher and DeFilippis, The Community Organisers Programme 2015). Posthumously, Fisher & Dimberg (2011-2015) (2016, p. 100) have labelled the COP the The £20 million state-funded COP “moderate middle” of community set out to train 5,000 community organisers organizing methodologies and strategies. over four years. Five hundred paid, trainee The COP’s objective was to support community organisers (TCOs) were trained the delivery of Big Society and localism for fifty-one weeks and were tasked to through working directly with local people recruit and train 4,500 volunteer to help raise community spirit; encourage community organisers (VCOs). In 2011, local community action; promote two national civil society organizations indigenous leadership in local working in partnership were communities; create new, locally-run commissioned to deliver the program. community groups and social enterprises; Locality led and managed it whilst and inspire democratic and social change RE:generate delivered the training. (Locality, 2010). To achieve this, Locality 5 Sustainable Communities Review set the TCOs four targets to complete in Fourth, to establish community holding fifty-one weeks. First, to listen to at least teams of VCS organizations and other local five-hundred people in their patch on leaders to listen, research, plan and take doorsteps. Second, to recruit at least nine coordinated action (Cameron et al., 2015). VCOs. Third, to co-produce with local Locality also set nine impact indicators to residents three to five community projects. assess each TCO’s impact in their patch. Figure 1 Nine impact indicators for the Community Organisers Programme 1. Individual possibility – moving individuals from apathy to agency,