HISTORY OF COMMUNITY ORGANIZING

Topic details Name

Subject Name CD-241 - Community Organization
Course Instructor
MUNIB A. KAHAL, DPA

Paper Name History of Community Organization

Topic Number Topic 2: History of Community Organisation
Students BSCD second Year
Community Organization, Charity Organization Society,
Keywords
Settlement House, Radical Organizing, Labour Unions

This topic will enable the student to

1. Understand the history of Community Organizing in both
global and Philippine contexts.
Learning Objectives
2. Understand the significance of Community Organizing as a
core method of community of practice
The objective of this paper is to describe the history of community organizing and its emergence
as a core method in community development practice. This paper presents the journey of
community organization, from its roots in nineteenth-century England, and its replication in the
United States of America. This will be followed by an understanding of the history of
community organizing in the Philippines, finally ending with a brief discussion on how
community organization has been used by labour unions in the country.

Introduction

The history of community organization has its roots in the late nineteenth century. The Industrial
Revolution in England in the mid-1800s had transformed its economy from an agrarian to an
industrial one. This in turn led to the process of rapid urbanization, prompting many people in
rural areas to move to urban areas in search of livelihood. The urban areas with industries
became centres for exploitation, sickness, accidents, disabilities, unemployment and other socio-
economic issues. The families that strove to make ends meet found it difficult to survive in these
circumstances and were left with only a few options to sustain themselves in the industrial
centres; namely, government relief, private charity or begging. It was commonly held that such
individuals and families were a failure due to their own weaknesses and deficiencies, and that
their poverty and distress was born out of individual causes.

Formation of the London Charity Organization Society

When a particular area suffered economic distress, many working people were rendered
unemployed and lacking any means to make an income. In response, several groups sprung up to
alleviate poverty and help such individuals and their families, primarily through private charity
and philanthropy. Most often these groups worked autonomously and without much coordination
among each other. Hence, some individuals and families succeeded in appealing to, and
receiving help from, more than one charity group. There was a need for coordinated effort
among these groups to reduce the incidence of repeatedly providing support to the same
individual or family. As a result, the first Charity Organization Society (COS) was formed in
London in 1869, for ‘Organizing Charitable Relief and Repressing Mendicity’ (Roof, 1972). The
COS would address two issues: 'self-respecting families who were struggling to keep themselves
from destitution should be helped and encouraged, and that charities should be organized and
coordinated, so that the best use could be made of resources' (ibid.)
The COS laid emphasis on a scientific method to systematically identify and register applicants
for charity as well as supervise the administering of charity. This approach helped to distinguish
between those poor that genuinely required charity from those that did not. The COS believed
that plainly giving out charity without thoroughly scrutinizing the real causes of poverty could
lead to permanent dependency and create a group of individuals or families that always relied on
charity for their survival. As a result, COS thrived in England in this period, keeping systematic
and centralized records of charity-seekers (through registration bureaus), stressing thorough and
objective investigation as well as professional training of the COS personnel and focusing on
coordination among various charities.

Since the core objective of COS was to address the cycle of poverty rather than simply providing
relief, community organization was its most important aspect. The goal of the COS was not
merely charity, but helping an individual or a family to gain self-reliance and self-sufficiency.
Through its activities, the COS in each area became the nerve-centre of information, updates and
referrals for several services within the community. By 1875, the COS had a number of offices
all over, which had effective coordination with each other.

Charity Organization Societies therefore were intervening in low-income and impoverished

urban communities to identify individuals and families in need of essential services. By
addressing poverty’s effects on individuals by providing systematic support, it attempted to
strengthen emergent urban communities.

Charity Organization Society in the United States of America

The London COS became the model for the United States, which at the time in 1877 was going
through its fourth year of a severe economic depression and industrial strife. This period was
characterized by starvation, suicides, hopelessness and destitution. In Buffalo, New York;
Episcopal rector, Rev. Stephen Humphreys Gurteen and T. Guilford Smith along with a group of
friends decided to start the first COS in their city, with the dual objectives of, bringing order out
of the chaos created by the city’s numerous charities by offering district conferences at which the
agencies could discuss their common problems and coordinate their efforts; and careful
investigations of appeals for help and a city-wide registration of applicants
It was believed that by inducing a rational system of scientific charitable administration, cyclical
poverty could be addressed and deserving poor could gain some support in their hardship so that
they were once again able to take responsibility (for themselves and their families) to become
self-reliant, instead of giving charity to the undeserving poor who would learn to receive alms
and then become dependent and idle.

The COS never concerned itself with the larger, structural causes of poverty such as the
economic causes that induce poverty in the first place. The Progressive era of the 1880s that was
characterized by a new wave of economic thought, gave impetus to a questioning of the forces of
capitalism and its impact on labour and human life. Large groups of unemployed people took to
the streets condemning capital and emphasizing social reform. These were working people who
faced poverty for no fault of their own. The context that surrounded them was industrialization,
unemployment, urbanization and immigration induced by capitalism. They demanded that
charity be focused not on individual causes and personal issues, rather, it should look at striving
to eradicate the social causes of poverty. It was at this time and in such socio-political context
that the “Settlement House movement” took birth. The goal of the Settlement houses was to meet
the immediate needs of the working class in their own neighbor-hoods by providing them with
services and basic reform. It was a collaborative practice that emphasized community building
and social action.

The Settlement House Movement

Toynbee Hall in Whitechapel was the first university settlement house established in London in
1884 by a group of middle-class London reformers. It was initiated by Samuel Barnett who
believed that settlement houses were ‘places where richer students could live alongside, learn
about and contribute to the welfare of much poorer people’. The Settlement workers were mainly
middle class reformers, often women volunteers, who would locate themselves in houses in the
middle of urban, poor, working class neighborhoods. They conducted research in the
surrounding communities and offered services to community members, such as language classes,
childcare, healthcare and meeting spaces.

Taking inspiration from this idea, social reformers in the United States too began establishing
settlement houses, in response to the rapidly growing industrial poverty and impoverishment.
The purpose of the American settlement houses was to ease the transition of immigrant workers
into the labour force, and to help them to assimilate middle-class American values. The
Neighbourhood Guild in New York was the first American settlement house founded by Stanton
Coit in 1886. This was followed by the establishment of the Hull-House in Chicago in 1889 by
Jane Addams and Ellen Starr. In 1893, a nurse and progressive reformer, Lilian Wald founded
the Henry Street Settlement in New York. By the 1890s, there were at least 400 settlement
houses in the United States, of which forty percent were in the industrial towns of Boston,
Chicago and New York. A characteristic feature of the settlement house movement was that
several important leadership positions (in nearly half of the USA settlement houses) were filled
by women, which was unusual in its time, when women were not commonly seen as leaders in
business or government.

Settlement workers were progressive in their approach because they aimed to gain insights about
poverty from directly experiencing the conditions under which poor people lived. They also
aimed to enable the poor to form organizations to improve their situation. Some, aimed to build
workers organizations that would agitate for reform. This approach was a sharp departure from
nineteenth century styles of charity where the wealthy maintained clear boundaries and upheld
their superiority in comparison with the poor. It tried to solve social problems and bridging the
class differences in rapidly industrializing cities of USA, by acknowledging that poverty was
caused by social and economic factors.

The Settlement House movement was at its peak around the 1920s. By locating themselves right
in the centre of urban poor working-class neighbourhoods, the Settlement Houses accomplished
a lot. The Hull-House in Chicago provided not only education (classes in history, art and
literature) and services (creche, public baths, homeless shelter and community kitchen) but also a
space for political activism advocating for social legislation to combat poverty at several
levels in politics. The settlement workers in other areas later persuaded municipal and state
governments to take responsibility for the programmes that they had initiated. They also lobbied
with local governments to pass reform legislations related to work place safety, minimum wages
and sanitation.

While the COS had instituted the ‘case-work’ method of social work practice, the Settlement
House movement had laid the foundation for community organization grounded in the idea of the
rich and poor living closely together and being interdependent. However, in the following years,
radical social workers began to emphasize the inclusion of new methods in keeping with the
socio-political changes of the time. Several innovative approaches were also evolving in the field
of community organization. The emphasis was now turning towards control by community
members instead of agency-driven activities as in the case of the settlement houses of the 1930s.
It was against this background that Robert P. Lane’s 1939 report titled ‘The Field of Community
Organization’ (also called ‘The Lane Report’) proved to be a milestone in social work education.

The Lane Report, 1939 and Community Organization

‘The Lane Report’ written by Robert P. Lane situated community organization practice within
Social Work education. It legitimated community organization as a method of social work
practice by presenting a systematic and comprehensive description of the roles, activities, and
methods in the field of community organization. The five propositions that emerged through the
process of Lane’s study were:

 The term ‘community organization’ refers both to a process and a field

 The process of organizing a community or some parts of it is carried on outside as well

as inside the general area of community development and social work

 Within Social Work and Community Development, the community organizing process is
carried on by some organizations as a primary function, and by others as a secondary
function

 the process exists on local, state, and national levels, and also between such levels

 those organizations whose primary function is the practice of community organization do not
as a rule offer help directly to clients (Lane, 1939: 496-97).
The report also defined the following functions for community organization (Austin and Betten,
1977):

a. fact finding for social planning and action

b. initiating, developing and modifying social welfare services

c. setting standards

d. facilitating interrelationships between different bodies concerned with welfare

e. developing public support and participation in social welfare activities

Radical Organizing

The late 1930s were marked by a militant labour movement of industrial workers in the United
States. This movement made a deep and lasting influence on a young community-organizer by
the name of Saul Alinsky, who worked with the Congress of Industrial Organizations. By 1939,
he became less active in the labour movement and began to move towards community organizing
in general. Over the next ten years, his concerted efforts at attempting to build a united voice of
discontent among fragmented slum communities gained him much popularity across the country.
Alinsky developed the ‘Back of the Yard Neighborhood Council’ (BYNC) by building a broad
coalition of union leaders, priests, small business-owners and neighbourhood residents. The
BYNC got jobs and services from corporations, the Chicago political machinery and the federal
government, and it created a stable, democratic and effective organization of neighborhood
residents.

In Alinksky’s view, Community Organizations should be based on:

a. democratic decision-making

b. indigenous leadership

c. should be open to all members of the community

d. balancing of different interests

And hence, according to Alinsky, Community Organizations must have a relationship with the
neighbourhood, they must build on existing groups, leadership and organization, they should
foreground community interests (no matter what these interests may be), they must believe that
using conflict strategies result in the greatest gains, and that, they must fight for concrete
victories because ‘winning built organization’.

Alisnky’s approach has also been criticized for different reasons, some of which include, its
injudicious dependence on neighborhood elites, its emphasis on established institutions and
already present viable organizations (such as churches or ethnic organizations), its unwillingness
to take up issues that may cause disagreements and its exclusion of marginalized groups (BYNC
was criticized for avoiding race issues). However, in large part, it is widely believed that
Alinsky’s approach revolutionized community organizing by its innovative ways of organizing
the oppressed and the powerless.

The War on Poverty Programme, USA

In the 1960s, the USA reeled under a poverty rate of nearly twenty per cent, and its economy
drained in the Vietnam war. Then US President Lyndon B. Johnson in his first State of the Union
speech in 1964 declared an unconditional ‘War on Poverty’ through a comprehensive social-
welfare legislation titled ‘The Economic Opportunity Act of 1964’. Poverty became a matter of
national concern and it was thought that this programme would eradicate poverty in the USA.
The original objective of the programme was to:

- To sponsor neighbourhood self-help projects

- Promote social action
- Coordinate existing local services
- Provide new services

The Office of Economic Opportunity (OEO) was established as part of this programme, to
administer federal spending on local programmes such as providing food stamps, creating Job
Corps (which provided urban school dropouts with alternative and vocational educational
programs), providing a work-study program which provided poor college students with jobs on
campus, establish VISTA (Volunteers in Service to America), and HeadStart (early education
program for children of poor families). The OEO led to the mushrooming of a large number of
grassroots organizations where ‘maximum feasible participation’ was stressed and hence,
Community Action Program Agencies (CAP Agencies) were created.

Community Action Program agencies moved beyond service delivery and began advocacy and
organizing. The National Welfare Rights Organization (NWRO) emerged from this process. The
NWRO not only provided services to the community such as running child-clinics and school
lunch programmes, but also defended and advocated the needs of welfare rights recipients
(Valocchi, n.d.).

Within the USA, Community Organizing practice located within periods of expansion and
contraction of civil rights, labour rights and social welfare rights. The first phase of expansion
have been 1900-1918— the ‘Progressive Era’— characterized by pubic investment and social
activism. The second phase of expansion was ‘The New Deal’ during 1933-1946 and the WWII,
and then followed the third phase from 1960-1975 as discussed above. The phases of contraction
of community organizing therefore have been 1877-1896, 1920-1929, 1948-59 and 1975-present.
Although the ‘War on Poverty’ programme was conceived as a top-down welfare programme, it
re-oriented itself to the civil rights movement in the mid-1960s.

It is clear, that community organizing focused on community-based practice. It was about

particular cultural identities and specific local community issues. Many grassroots movements,
labour movements, women’s rights movements and in recent years, also anti-globalization
struggles have been anchored in community-based practice. The ideals and initiatives grounded
in social, economic and political justice, guide community practice inside and outside social
work. Let us now turn our attention to community organizing in the country.

History of Community Organizing in the Philippines

Marcos’ declaration of martial rule in 1972 altered the terrain for social movements. All
progressive groups were subjected to repression while some individuals were either eliminated or
arrested by the military. During the early stages of martial rule, all attempts at organizing ground
to a halt, except for the Zone One Tondo Organization (ZOTO).

The repressive situation led a large number of activists to go underground and wage armed
struggle against the Martial Law regime. Some organizations like the FFF were co-opted by the
regime. Others simply laid low.

Church-based programs which functioned as non-government organizations (NGOs) were the first
to engage in organizing despite martial law. These include the Urban and Rural Missionaries of
the Philippines, Task Force Detainees of the Philippines, Episcopal Commission on Tribal
Filipinos, Share and Care Apostolate for Poor Settlers, and PEACE, among others.

Soon, however, NGOs resumed grassroots activities. The Philippine Ecumenical Council for
Community Organization (PECCO) continued with the refinement and implementation of the
community organizing (CO) approach all over the country, in combination with the Marxist
structural analysis and the thinking of Saul Alinsky and Paolo Freire. Politicized NGOs used the
structural analysis approach in conscientizing and mobilizing, while the Basic Christian
Community framework was developed by the progressive church as a response to the needs of the
time. Programs like education and health, economic enterprises and cooperative development
were used as entry points for organizing to avoid getting in trouble with the dictatorship.

Various political formations saw the need to set up NGOs or influence the programs and projects
of existing ones in order to pursue their own interests. On the positive side, it cannot be denied
that the most effective NGOs of the period were those whose leaders and staff had ideological
leanings. On the other side, internal ideological struggles wracked some NGOs as ideological
debates and rivalries within the mass movement spilled over to the social development
community. PECCO, for one, split in 1977 because of ideological differences among its elements,
leading to the formation of two separate organizations—the Community Organization of the
Philippines Enterprise (COPE) and the People’s Ecumenical Action for Community
Empowerment (PEACE).

Developmental institutions eventually saw the need for more coordinated activities among
themselves. In December 1972, ten foundations came together and formed the Association of
Foundations (AF). The association expanded to 40 members by 1976. More progressive groups
formed the Philippine Alliance for Rural and Urban Development (PARUD), a consortium of POs
and NGOs with more or less the same ideological bent.

Repression continued, but opposition to the Martial Law regime became more consolidated. There
was widespread unrest as the majority of the people remained mired in poverty; wages were kept
at very low levels and human rights violations increased. When Martial Law was "paperlifted" in
1981, organizing efforts multiplied, and innovative approaches and tools were developed and
replicated all over the country. NGOs were instrumental in the development of the organized mass
movement.
Human rights as an advocacy issue was effectively raised by pioneers in this field such as the Task
Force Detainees of the Philippines and lawyers’ groups like Free Legal Assistance Group (FLAG)
and MABINI.

International campaigns against weapons of mass destruction, environmental conservation and

sustainable development influenced the Philippine social development terrain. NGOs with these
issues as primary concerns were established during the period. The women’s movement also
began to flex its strength locally.
NGOs recognized the need to band together into networks for purposes of linkaging,
synchronization of activities, and cooperative exchanges of experiences and resources. Networks
formed during this period include the Philippine Partnership for the Development of Human
Resources in the Rural Areas (PhilDHRRA) and the Council for People’s Development (CPD).
Regional NGO networks such as Kahayag Foundation in Mindanao and the Consortium of
Development Programs in the Cordillera were formed also.
Cooperatives went through a second wave of growth during this period. The government formed
the Cooperative Union of the Philippines in 1979 and required all cooperatives to register.
Independent cooperatives refused to yield and instead formed the National Confederation of
Cooperatives (NATCCO) (ACSPPA/PCHRD, 1995).

The assassination of Benigno Aquino in 1983 led to widespread street protests which became
known as the "parliament of the streets." It attracted a cross-section of society including
previously unpoliticized sectors, such as business and the institutional Church.
There were efforts to forge unity among the anti-dictatorship forces. Several coalitions were
formed: Justice for Aquino, Justice for All (JAJA), Kongreso ng Mamamayang Pilipino
(KOMPIL), Bagong Alyansang Makabayan (BAYAN) and others. But these organizations did not
last long due to ideological differences among its members.

Major organizations among the ranks of the peasant, fisherfolks and indigenous peoples were
organized for the purpose of advancing sectoral agendas.
Other venues of development work were explored further. Programs that focused on livelihood,
gender equality, ecology, alternative legal assistance, support for migrant workers and others were
implemented.

One of the issues that divided the social development sector during this period was the question of
whether to participate in the 1986 snap presidential election. The mainstream national democratic
movement and the NGOs and POs under its influence opted to boycott the election, while the
other left-of-center formations decided to participate, albeit critically.

During the First Quarter Storm of the seventies, CO was introduced through the Philippine
Ecumenical Council for Community Organization (PECCO). The group organized communities in
Tondo and established the Council of Tondo Foreshore Community Organization which proved to
be an organization of leaders. Re-training was carried out to improve the organizing skills of
PECCO personnel. The Saul Alinsky method of conflict-confrontation developed in Chicago was
adapted to conditions in Tondo. As a result, the Zone One Tondo Organization (ZOTO) was born.
The program was replicated in other parts of the Philippines, including the rural areas and usually
introduced through Church structures. The Alinsky CO method was refined to include reflection
sessions, which were, in turn taken from Paulo Freire’s "Pedagogy of the Oppressed."
When Martial Law was declared, organizing efforts continued. During this time development
workers began pushing for people’s participation and CO became the tool for achieving this. Both
international development groups and governments began advocating and funding CO programs.
Thus, community organizing proliferated.

Even before PECCO adopted Alinsky’s practice of community organizing, the progressive section
of the Catholic Church had already started organizing Basic Christian Communities (BCC) in
Mindanao with the proclamation of Vatican II. It soon spread to some parts of Luzon and Visayas
and the organizing was liturgical, employing Bible studies and other creative forms of worship.
But during the Martial Law period, the BCC became a means for witnessing the Teachings and
Example of Christ through socio-political work. The cooperative formation, organizing that was
socio-economic, also persisted during this time.