Handbook on Citizen

PartiCiPation

Community organizing as a tool of enHanCing Citizen

PartiCiPation

Handbook on Citizen PartiCiPation

Community Organizing as a Tool of Enhancing Citizen Participation

A Cooperative Project between the Grundtvig “Community Learning – Building Capacity and Empowerment for Active Citizenship” Project &

The European Community Organizing Network

© European Community Organizing Network, July, 2012

TABLE Of CONTENTs

Executive summary ................................................................................................................................ 3

Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 4

Preface – Why Organize? ....................................................................................................................... 5

What is Community Organizing? ........................................................................................................... 6A. DefinitionofCommunityOrganizing .......................................................................... 6B. DescriptionofCommunityOrganizing ........................................................................ 6C. CommunityOrganizingComparedtoOtherFormsofCommunityInterventions ............... 7D. BriefHistoryandCurrentPracticeofCommunityOrganizingintheUS ........................... 7E. BriefHistoryofCommunityOrganizinginEurope ........................................................ 8

from Theory to Practice – Community Organizing Case studies ....................................................... 9A. CommunityOrganizinginGermany .......................................................................... 9 Saarbrücken–fromDoingforPeopletoDoingwithPeople .................................... 9 Bonn–SavingMoneyandtheEnvironmentwithBetterGarbageCollection .............12B. CommunityOrganizinginRomania ..........................................................................14 Bucharest,LaculTei–ANeighbourhoodwithaCivicSpark ...................................14 Bucharest,Callatis–MakingPromisesComeTrue ...............................................16C. CommunityOrganizinginSlovakia ..........................................................................21 BanskaBystrica,Radvan–ShellCampaign–WinningAgainstAllOdds .................21D. CommunityOrganizingintheRepublicofMoldova ....................................................25 CantemirandCahul–fromScepticismandThreatstoHopeandVictories ...............25E. CommunityOrganizinginPoland ............................................................................28 Katowice–SolvingaCommonNeighborhoodProblem:LackofParking .................28F. CommunityOrganizinginHungary..........................................................................33 Budapest–GivingPowertoThoseLackingIttheMost:EmpoweringPeople LivinginPovertythroughCommunityOrganizing ...............................33 Budapest–TheCityisforAll–OrganizingtheHomeless ......................................36

Conclusions ........................................................................................................................................ 38

Community Organizing References and Resources ............................................................................ 41

Contact information ............................................................................................................................. 44

ExECuTIvE summARy

The Handbook, created in the framework of a cooperative project between a Grundtvig Learning Partnership and the European Community Organizing Network (ECON) presents community organizing as a practice of fuller engaging citizens in public decisions that affect their lives. After a short explanation and description of community organizing both in the United States and in Europe and a comparison with other means of intervention in the community, the Handbook presents five concrete community organizing examples from the four Grundtvig partners, as well as, four additional examples from members of the European Community Organizing Network (ECON). These case studies illustrate how residents and citizens in city neighbourhoods and villages were able to participate through democratic processes to identify priority themes and achieve solutions in cooperation with governmental and business leaders. The list of accomplishments in these nine locations are impressive and include infrastructure improvements (the construction of a footbridge in Saarbrücken, the clean-up and paving of an alley and the modernization of a park in Bucharest, new parking lots in Katowice, new parking rules in Bucharest, and the renovation of a bus stop in Moldova), more sanitary and environmentally-sound garbage collection and separation in Bonn, the prevention of a gas station to be built in the city center in Banska Bystrica and the purchase of needed hospital equipment in Moldova.

In addition to the concrete and visible neighbourhood and village improvements that have occurred as a result of citizen participation strategies, this Handbook tells a deeper story about the human spirit when ordinary people work together for the common good. The nine case studies (especially those from Central and Eastern Europe) contain the stories of residents listening to and working with each other, overcoming the lingering post-communist fear of engaging in public life. It is the story of struggle, at-times disappointment and fatigue, and then the self-confidence, empowerment, and hope that comes when goals and dreams are achieved. It is a story that has been repeated countless times throughout history when citizens participate in the democratic process. While every story has its unique aspects, community organizing has provided a set of strategies and best practices for the participants in these case studies to utilize and build upon.

The nine community groups contained in the case studies have plans to continue their work, and in some cases to expand to new neighbourhoods, villages, cities, and regions. They face, however, common challenges that have been underlined throughout the case studies and conclusions of the Handbook. Among these challenges is to find the necessary seed funding to employ a professional community organizer, an essential component for a community organizing process to thrive. A second common challenge, especially in Central and Eastern Europe where civic participation was suppressed for forty-five years or longer, is for citizens and residents to construct sustainable and democratic organizations, capable of involving more and more people to solve problems over a long-term period of time. The case studies in this Handbook, however, offer the hope and promise that these challenges will be successfully met and overcome.

The Handbook ends with a list of references and resources in English and European languages for those who wish to learn more about and implement community organizing in their communities.

5

INTROduCTION This “Handbook on Citizen Participation” is the result of the EUGrundtvig Lifelong Learning

Programme“CommunityLearning–BuildingCapacityandEmpowermentforActiveCitizenship”ProjectincooperationwiththeEuropeanCommunityOrganizingNetwork(ECON).ThefourpartnersinthisGrundtvigProjectweretheResourceCenterforPublicParticipation(CeRe)inBucharest,Romania;theBonaFidesAssociationinKatowice,Poland;theAnti-PovertyNetworkinBudapest,Hungary;andDiakonieinBonn,Germany.ThemainobjectivesofthisGrundtvigProjectweretolearnmethodstohelpengagepeopleoflocalcommunitiesininfluencingtheircommunitylifemoreactivelyandbuildcitizens’capacityandempowerment.

TheprimarymethodusedbytheGrundtvigpartnersinthisProjectwascommunityorganizing.Communityorganizinghasaseventy-yeartraditionintheUnitedStatesandhasbeenrapidlygrowinginEuropeduringthepasttenyears.Communityorganizingisademocratically-governedlong-termprocessbywhichpeoplearebroughttogethertoactintheircommonself-interesttoidentifycommunityproblems and solutions, and to take action by engaging existing power structures tomake thosesolutionsareality.

The Project alsowanted to build a strong partnership between EU organizations involved inteachingactivecitizenparticipation.TheProjectachieveditsaimsandobjectivesthrough:

ongoingactivitiesinvolvingvolunteerstosolvecommunityproblemsbasedonthemethodofcommunityorganizing;

fourjointgatheringsforsharing,comparing,andevaluatingourlocalexperienceswithactivecitizenparticipationandteachingmethodsheldinBucharest,Bonn,Katowice,andBudapest;

an initial planning meeting held in Szczecin, Poland and a final dissemination meetingorganizedinBucharest,Romania;

thepublicationofthe“Handbookoncitizenparticipation”asareflectiononthelocalworkcarriedoutduringthis2yearsGrundtvigPartnership.

Inpreparing thisHandbook, theGrundtvigpartnerswereassistedby theexperiencesof themembersandexpertiseoftheEuropeanCommunityOrganizingNetwork(ECON).Foundedin2008,themission of ECON is to promote, support, and expand community organizing in Europe.Withmembersinninecountries(Bosnia,Germany,Hungary,Moldova,Poland,Romania,Slovakia,Sweden,andtheUkraine),ECONprovidestrainings,consulting,andotherresourcestoorganizationswantingto implementcommunityorganizing.ECONhasalsoorganizedexchangesbetweenorganizersandvolunteerswithinEuropeandwiththeUnitedStates,aswellas,hostsanannualmeetingfortrainingandtheexchangeofexperiencesandbestpractices.

ThepartnersofthisProjectwishtothanktheEuropeanCommission,inparticulartheGrundtvigLifelongLearningProgrammeandtheNationalAgenciesineachcountryfortheirfinancialsupportforboththisHandbookandforaveryproductiveexperienceoflearningandexchangewithothersintheEuropeancommunity.

6

Why ORGANIzE?Thepast20yearshavebeentimesofmajorchangeinCentralandEasternEurope.Progresshas

beenmadeintransitioningtodemocraticgoverningstructures,market-basedeconomies,connectingtoWesternEurope,anddevelopinganewcivilsocietyandNGOsector.Nevertheless,thesedevelopmentshavebeenunevenfromcountry-to-countryandnowthewholeofEuropefacesmajornewchallengesduetothecurrentglobaleconomiccrisissuchashighunemployment,cutsinneededgovernmentalservices,andtheriseofpoverty,nationalism,anddiscriminationagainstracialandethnicminorities.

Evenasprogresshasbeenmade,thereistheneedtodevelopacultureofactiveanddemocraticcitizenparticipationatthe local,regional,andnational levels.Thisneedhasbeenobservedbymany,includingthePoliticalAffairsCommitteeoftheParliamentaryAssemblyoftheCouncilofEuropewhentheywrote:“Theparadoxoftoday’sdemocraciesisthat,althoughnevereverinthepasthavesomanypeoplelivedindemocracies,neverweresomanypeopledisappointedwiththequality of the democracy theyliveinandexperienceonadailybasis…Wearewitnessingahugeconcentrationofpowerandmoney,andveryoftenalsoahugeconcentrationofthemedia,inthehandsofafew,sothatourdemocraticinstitutionsbecomevulnerable.”(“DemocracyinEurope:crisisandperspectives”,May26,2010,pages6and10)

AndassociologistRalfDahrendorfpointsout,oneshouldexpectthebuildingofhealthydemocracyandactivecitizenparticipationtobealong-termprocess.“Ittakessixmonthstocreatenewpoliticalinstitutions,towriteaconstitutionandelectorallaws.Itmaytakesixyearstosetupahalf-wayviableeconomy.Itwillprobablytakesixtyyearstocreateacivilsociety.Autonomousinstitutionsarethehardestthingstobringout.”(“HastheEastjoinedtheWest?”,NewPerspectiveQuarterly,7:2,Spring,1990,page42)

Citizens’ ability tomeaningfully participate and speak for themselves in the newdemocraticand capitalist systems is also severely constrained due to a lack of experience and exposure tograssrootsdemocraticpractice.Strategiesfromthecommunityorganizingtraditionofferoneofthebestopportunitiesforthedevelopmentofactive,powerful,anddemocraticcitizenparticipation.

Communityorganizingasadistinctformofcitizens’participationbestpracticesbeganwiththeworkofSaulAlinskyintheUnitedStatesin1938.ThousandsofcommunityorganizationscurrentlyexistintheUnitedStatesandaroundtheworld,givingordinarycitizensthechancetoshapetheirvillages,neighbourhoods,andcities.Communityorganizinghassuccessfullyaddressedthemesrelatedtoinfrastructureimprovements,employmentandjobtraining,integrationofmigrantsintomainstreamsociety,activitiesforyouth,healthcare,housing,challengesfacedbytheelderly,drugsandcrime.Ithasworkedwithlow-incomeandmiddle-classpersons,migrants,homelessanddisabledpersons,seniorcitizens,theunemployed,andothers.Throughcommunityorganizing,ordinarycitizenshavetakenanactiveroleinthedemocraticprocess,helpingtomakegovernmentalandbusinessactionsmoreaccountableandtransparent.

Why organize? Because the active and powerful participation of citizens in decision-makingprocessesthatshapetheirneighbourhoods,villages,cities,nations,andthewholeofEuropeisthevitalcomponentofahealthydemocracy.Andalsobecausethetimeswithinwhichweliveposechallengesthatrequirecitizensguidedbyvaluesofcompassionandjustice,toleranceandappreciationofdiversitytobepowerfulplayersinthepublicarena.

7

WhAT Is COmmuNITy ORGANIzING?

A. definition of Community Organizing

Community organizing isademocratically-governedlong-termprocessbywhichpeoplearebroughttogethertoactintheircommonself-interesttoidentifycommunityproblemsandsolutions,andtotakeactionbyengagingexistingpowerstructurestomakethosesolutionsareality.

4 steps of the Community Organizing Process:1. Systematicallylisteningtoresidentsandcitizensinordertoselectandprioritizeproblems

andvisions.

2. Identifyingpotentialsolutions,andthepeopleandinstitutionsthatcanmakethosesolutionspossible.

3. Takeactiontosolveproblemsbyengagingthosepeopleandinstitutionsidentifiedthroughnegotiation,usingconfrontationandpressurewhennecessary.

4. Buildlarge,sustainable,anddemocraticgroupscapableofaddressingnumerousproblems,needs,andwishesinthecommunity.

B. description of Community Organizing

While community organizing can take different forms (organization of individuals or anorganization of organizations, such as NGO’s, tenant associations, labour and women’s groups,religious congregations, etc.) and involve different constituencies (a neighbourhood or village,migrants,personswithdisabilities,homelesspersons,etc.),communityorganizingalwaysbeginswithlistening–withidentifyingtheinterests,concerns,andvisionsofthecitizensinvolved.Duringthisfirststepofcommunityorganizing,anotherimportantgoalistobuildrelationshipsoftrustandrespectamongthecitizens,oftenofdiversebackgrounds.Personsaremuchmorelikelytogetinvolvedinthedemocraticprocesswhentheirprimaryinterestsarebeingaddressedandwhentheyareengagedwithotherstheytrustandrespect.Followingasystematiclisteningprocess,citizensdemocraticallyselectamanageablenumberofprioritythemestheycansolve.

Identifyingpotentialsolutionsincludesconductingresearchabouthowaproblemcanbesolved(forexample,seekingsuccessfulexamplesfromotherneighbourhoodsorcitiesthatcanbetransferredtoourarea)andwhichinstitution(citycouncil,governmentaladministration,schoolsystem,police,localbusiness,etc.)hastheauthorityandresourcestoassist.Whilesomethemescanbesolvedbygroupsofvolunteersactingalone,citizensoftenneedtheassistanceofkey institutionstoaddresstheirconcernsandvisions.

8

Whencitizenshaveidentifiedpotentialsolutions,theytakeactionbymeetingwithauthoritiesinbothnegotiatingmeetingswheretheproblemsandsolutionscanbediscussedandresolved,andinlargemeetingswherethecommunityorganizationdemonstratesits“powerinnumbers”andwhereauthoritiesareaskedtopubliclycommittosolvingtheproblemwithspecificactions.Citizensareoftenignoredwhentheyindividuallypresenttheirproblemstopublicauthorities.Whencitizensjointogetherinlargenumbers,however,theirpowerandinfluencetomakechangeissignificantlyincreased.

Inthemidstoflistening,research,andaction,communityorganizingalsoinvolvescitizensintheprocessofbuildinga long-term,sustainable,anddemocratically-governedcommunityorganizationcapableofaddressingnumerousproblemsandvisions.Suchanorganizationdevelopsthedemocraticparticipationskillsoflargenumbersofcitizens,includingfundraisingskillsthatallowtheorganizationto hire a community organizerwho assists in training, recruiting, andmobilizingmembers of theorganizationanditsallies.

C. Community Organizing Compared to Other forms of Community Interventions

Communityorganizingworkswithpeople,ascomparedtosocial work whichdoesforpeople.Advocacyinvolvespersonswhospeakforothers,whilecommunityorganizingempowerscitizenstospeakforthemselves.Community developmentofteninvolvespartnershipsbetweencitizensandpublicauthorities.Communityorganizingalsoseekstoworkwithpublicauthorities,butitrecognizesthatconfrontationandpressurearesometimesnecessarytoholdauthoritiesaccountable.Movements andcitizen initiativesoftenfocusonasingletheme,whereascommunityorganizingseekstobuildalong-term,democratically-governedorganizationcapableofsuccessfullyaddressingnumerousthemes.

D. Brief history and Current Practice of Community Organizing in the united states

Community organizingbegan in theUnitedStates in 1938with thework ofSaulAlinsky. Itgrewratherslowlyinitsfirsttwentytothirtyyears,butthengrewrapidlyinthe1960’sand1970’s.Thousandsofcommunityorganizationscurrentlyexist,manyofwhichare linkedtogetherthroughnetworkscapableofprovidingtraining,consulting,andtheopportunitytoworktogetheroncommonthemesatacity-wide,regional,andnationallevel.CommunityorganizingbecameevenbetterknownintheUnitedStatesduringthe2008presidentialcampaignwhenthethencandidateBarackObamaoften spokeof his experiencesasa communityorganizer inChicago for threeyears followinghisuniversitystudies.

Community organizing in theUnitedStates is financially supportedby a growingnumber offoundationswhich recognize that investing in citizens’ participation often provides greater resultsthaninvestingincharityprojects.AtypicalcommunityorganizationintheUnitedStatesalsoraises

9

a significant part of its own budget for staff, leadership training, and office expenses throughmembershipduesandfundraisingactivities.Almostallcommunityorganizationsareincorporatedasnon-profitorganizations(NGO’s)withawrittenconstitutionwhichstatesitsguidingvalues,aswellas,itsproceduresforelectingleadershipandmakingdecisionsinademocraticfashion.Numerousbookshavebeenwrittenandwebsitesestablishedwhichsharethehistory,successes,andbestpracticesofcommunityorganizingintheUnitedStates.

E. Brief history of Community Organizing in Europe

CommunityorganizinghasexistedinEuropeforapproximatelytwentyyears.EarlyexamplesincludetheformationoftheGermanForumCommunityOrganizing(FOCO),establishedafteruniversitystudentscomparedAmericancommunityorganizingtoGermanformsofgroupsocialwork,andtheformationoftheSlovakCenterforCommunityOrganizing(CKO)whichinitiallyreceivedfundingfromtheNationalDemocraticInstituteandotherswhowishedtosupportdemocraticpracticesinCentralandEasternEurope.

Inthepastfiveyearscommunityorganizinghasbeenrapidlyexpanding inCentral,Eastern,andWesternEuropeancountries,successfullywinningneighbourhoodinfrastructureimprovements,bettergarbagecollection,moreactivitiesforyoungpeople,moregreenspace,etc.Theireffortshavebeensupportedbygroups liketheEuropeanCommunityOrganizingNetwork(ECON),trainingandconsulting visits by American community organizers, and exchanges among European communityorganizersandvolunteerstolearnfromeachother.Thecommunityorganizingmodelhasshownitselftobeflexibleinadaptingtodifferentculturalandinstitutionalcontexts.

10

fROm ThEORy TO PRACTICE – COmmuNITy ORGANIzING CAsE sTudIEs

Community Organizing in Germany

Intheearly1990’s,agroupofstudentsattheUniversityinFreiburgwrotetheirseniorthesiscomparing community organizing in the United States with a form of German community socialwork. This study led to twoweek-long community organizing trainings in Germany conducted bytwoAmericancommunityorganizers,theformationoftheForumCommunityOrganizing(FOCO–amembershiporganizationdedicatedtopromotingcommunityorganizinginGermany),andastudytripbyFOCOmemberstoChicagotolearnmoreaboutcommunityorganizing.FOCOinvitedandhelpedsupport twoAmerican community organizers to live andwork inGermany, either to assist in thebuildingofcommunityorganizationsortoassistorganizationsusecommunityorganizingstrategiesintheirwork.

FOCOremainsactiveandisasignificantpartnerintheEuropeanCommunityOrganizingNetwork(ECON). In addition, various organizations in the German Protestant Church have supported thedevelopmentofcommunityorganizingthroughjointregional,national,and international trainings;consultingand trainings for localcommunityorganizingprojects;and the involvementofDiakonieserviceofficesandparishesinlocalcommunityorganizingprojects.

LikeinotherEuropeancountries,communityorganizinginGermanyfacesthechallengesofraisingmoney for community organizers and developing long-term, democratic organizational structurescapable of engaging larger numbers of residents and citizens. Significant progress, however, hasbeenmadeduringthepastfiveyearsandtheinterestincommunityorganizingcontinuesgrowinginGermany.CommunityorganizingiscurrentlybeingusedinBaesweiler,Berlin,Bonn,Düren,Hamburg,Leipzig,Neuruppin,Saarbrücken,Stuttgart,andUslar.

1. saarbrücken – from doing for People to doing with People

IntroductionStadtteilbüroMalstatt(NeighborhoodOfficeinMalstatt)providesabroadrangeofservicestothe

residentsoftheMalstattneighbourhoodintheGermancityofSaarbrücken.TheMalstattneighbourhoodhas approximately 10,000 residents with a large concentration of low-income, unemployed, andmigrantpersons.WiththeassistanceoftheGermanForumCommunityOrganizing(FOCO)in2007,thestaffofStadtteilbüroMalstattandsomeresidentsreceivedtrainingincommunityorganizing.TheyinitiatedtheirfirstcommunityorganizingprocessinDecember,2007.Thisinitialprocessnotonlywona€1.1millioninfrastructureimprovementfortheMalstattneighbourhood,italsobeganaprocessthatistransformingtheworkofStadtteilbüroMalstatt,aswellas,theneighbourhood’srelationshipwithgovernmentofficials.

11

12

first Community Organizing Process – 2008InDecember,2007andJanuary,2008threestaffpersons fromStadtteilbüroMalstatt initiated

itsfirstcommunityorganizingprocessbyconductingover50face-to-facevisitswithlow-incomeandmigrantresidents,listeningforneighbourhoodproblemsandvisions.OnFebruary14,2008anassemblywasheldwith30 residents to report on theproblemsandvisionsheardduring thesevisits and todemocraticallyprioritizethemesthatresidentswishedtoaddress.DuringthisprocessitwaslearnedthatthecityofSaarbrückenhadplanstodestroyamuchusedfootbridgewhichcrossesrailroadtracksinthemiddleofMalstattandconnectsthetwomainsectionsoftheneighbourhood.Thecitystatedthatthis50-year-oldfootbridgewasgrowingdangerousandtoocostlyforongoingrepairs.

ResidentswiththehelpofstaffconductedresearchandotheractivitiesduringthemonthsofFebruary-April,2008.Amongotherthings,theylearnedthatover1,000residentsusethefootbridgeonadailybasis(childrenattendingschool,personswishingtogoshoppingandvisittheirneighbours,etc.).Over2,800signaturesweregatheredinsupportofrepairingorreplacingthefootbridge.Over40neighbourhoodorganizations(churchesandclubs)andprofessionals(shopowners,doctors,etc.)wrotesupportstatements.OnApril23,2008apublicmeetingof125residentswasheldwithleadersofthefourpoliticalpartiesrepresentedintheSaarbrückenCityCouncil,seekingtheirsupportfortherepairingorreplacingofthefootbridge.AllfourpoliticalpartyleaderspledgedtheirsupportandinJuly,2008theSaarbrückenCityCouncilvoted€1.1millionforthebuildingofanewfootbridge.OnSeptember22,2010thenewfootbridgewasopenedanddedicatedwithafestivalattendedbyabout250residentsandcityleaders.20residentswereactivelyinvolvedinplanningthisfestival.

Besides thevery tangible result of thenew footbridge,manyother things resulted from theseinitialcommunityorganizingefforts.Firstandforemost,residentslearnedthattheirideasandactionscanmakeadifference,thatcitizenparticipationhasdirectbenefits.Second,therewasastrongdesiretocontinueusingcommunityorganizingstrategiestotackleotherpressingproblemsandachieveotherneighbourhoodvisions.Buttodoso, itwasfeltthatresourcesmustbefoundtofundastaffpersontoassist residents in theseefforts– thestaffofStadtteilbüroMalstattcouldnotdobothcommunityorganizingandtheserviceworkcalledforintheirworkcontracts.Third,interestintheuseofcommunityorganizingstrategiesgrewinsurroundingneighbourhoodsandwithcityofficialsasawaytoencouragegreatercitizenparticipation.Andfinally,therewasadesiretoconnectwithothersinGermanyandEuropewhowereusingsimilarstrategiesinordertobeabletoshareexperiencesandlearnfromoneanother.

follow-up steps and ConclusionSincetheircommunityorganizingprocess in2008,StadtteilbüroMalstatthasworkedwithother

neighbourhoodstakeholdersandthecityofSaarbrückeninrenovatingalargeabandonedfieldsurroundedbytwochurchesandaschoolintoafacilityforyouthandfamilyactivities.StadtteilbüroMalstattandthecityofSaarbrückenalsocooperatedinsecuringaneighteen-monthpilotprojectgrantfromtheGermannationalgovernmentinordertoexpandcommunityorganizingintheMalstattneighbourhoodandbuildalong-termresidents/citizensorganization(“MalstattTogetherStrong”).IntheSpringof2012,asecondlisteningprocesswith200residentswasconductedalongwitha45personissuesassemblyinwhichactiongroupsofresidentswereformedtobeginlookingforsolutionstoissuesrelatedtoneighbourhoodsecurity

13

andbeautification,traffic,culturalopportunities,andsenioractivities.Finally,staffandvolunteersfromtheMalstattneighbourhoodareactiveparticipantsintheGermanForumCommunityOrganizing(FOCO)andtheEuropeanCommunityOrganizingNetwork(ECON),givingthemtheopportunitytosharetheirsuccessesandexperienceswith,aswellas,learnfromothersdoingcommunityorganizing.

ThestaffsofStadtteilbüroMalstattandthecityofSaarbrückenhavemovedfromasocialservicemodelofdoingthingsforresidents,toacommunityorganizingmodelofdoingthingswithresidents–givingadirectvoicetotheproblemsandvisionsofordinarycitizens.

2. Bonn – saving money and the Environment with Better Garbage CollectionTheTannenbuschneighbourhoodisonthenorthernborderoftheCityofBonn.Ithasapproximately

10,000residentsofover100ethnicitiesanddiversebackgrounds.Manyschools,shoppingandsportfacilitiesarelocatedinthedistrict,neverthelessitsuffersfromareputationasanunsafeandwelfare-dependentpartofthecity.Theoutwardappearanceisdominatedbyhigh-risesocialhousingbuildings,whichpartlyareinaverypoorconditionduetothefactthatmostflatsareownedbyhedge-fundcompanies.Thesehousingcompaniesarenotwillingtoinvestintheirbuildingsinthisparticulararea,culminatinginheatingsystemsbreakingdownandmildewbeingfoundinflats.Theunwillingnessofthehousingcompaniestocometoaconsensuswiththetenantsandcityrepresentatives,tryingtoworkoutaconceptforthefuturedevelopmentofthedistrict,hasbeensubjecttolocalandregionalandnewscoverage.

CommunityOrganizing inTannenbuschwas initiatedbytheStadtteilbüro(neighbourhoodoffice)Diakonieandstartedwithover120interviewstakingplacefromNovember2009toFebruary2010.AfteranassemblyinMay,2010workinggroupswereformedfocussingontopicssuchasemployment,security,educationandwasteinthedistrict.Thethemeofwastewasdecidedtobeaddressedasthetoppriority.

Theneighbourhood’swasteproblemwasaratherspecialchallenge.Thesocialhousingbuildings,builtinthelate1960’s,wereequippedwithanundergroundtubesystem,pumpingthetrashdirectlyfromcertainlitteringstations,withouthavingtheneedofseparatingthetrashinadvance.Thedistrictthereforewasnotsuppliedwithusualtrashcans.AstheCityofBonndecidedtoshutdowntheundergroundsystem,thehousingcompanieswereobligedtoestablishanalternativeconceptfortakingcareofthedistrict’strash.Althoughthosecompaniesmanagedtosupplytheneighbourhoodwithtrashcans,theyfailedtoprovideoptionsfortrashseparationwhichisnotonlyanenvironmentalfactor,butalsoaneconomicfactorasthecostsofwastedisposal,whichhastobepaidbythetenants,tripledunderthenewsystem.

Severalweeksaftertheresident’sgroup,bythenhavingcreatedthenameinTakt(inTannenbuschactive)andalogo,hadmadethedecisiononthetopicandpublishedit,oneofthehousingcompaniessurprisinglyaddressed inTakt,requestingthegrouptosupport thecompany’sattemptof improvingthepreviouslyestablishedwastesystem.Afterdiscussingtheopportunitiesandpotentialproblemsthatmightoccur,inTaktdecidedtocooperatewiththedisposalcompanyhiredbythehousingcompany.Shortlyafterthiscommitment,theneighbourhoodwasfinallysuppliedwithenoughtrashcanstoallowwasteseparation,anachievementthattookover8monthsfromwhentheoldsystemwasshutdown.Thisgarbageseparationsolutionisnotonlyenvironmentallyfriendly,butalsosavesresidentsapproximately300Europeryear.

InTakt also accompanied house calls made by employees of the disposal company, pastedinformationaboutwaste-separatingintrashcansandorganizedaneventinDecember2010inorder

14

to informtenantsaboutthenewsystemandtheeconomicadvantagesof trashseparation.InTaktreceivedpositivefeedbackfromthedisposalcompanyandthegarbagecollectionoftheCityofBonnthatthenewsystemwasacceptedandthereforeinconclusionsuccessfullyestablished.

After starting a new listening process in February2011, inTakt facedgreat obstacles as thegrouplostitscommunityorganizerwhocouldnotbefundedanylonger.SincetheninTaktconsistscompletelyofvolunteers,whichmakesitdifficulttokeeptrackofmultipleissues.

TheGrundtvig-sponsored visit by inTakt groupmembers in January 2011was an enormouspromoterforbuildingpersonalrelationsbetweenthegroupmembers.ThoserelationsandtheexchangewiththeothergroupsattendingtheGrundtvigexchangealsoledtoastrongidentificationwiththeactionsofinTaktandthemethodofcommunityorganizing.

WhenorganizingGrundtvig-sponsoredexchangeinBonnonSeptember16-17,2011,inTaktalsotooktheopportunitytopresentcommunityorganizingtoabroaderaudienceandthereforeinvitedcityrepresentatives,thecityadministrationandthepublictojointheGrundtvigexchangepartnersinatwohourdiscussion.DuringthiseventinTaktpresentedtheworkdoneinTannenbusch,butalsopromotedthemethodofcommunityorganizingingeneralbycollaboratingwiththeexchangepartnerswhogaveexamplesoftheirownwork.Partiallyopeningtheexchangeprogrammethereforehelpedtounderlinethepossibilitiesofcommunityorganizingthroughthesharingofsuccessstories,aswellashighlightingcommunityorganizingasamethodemergingalloverEurope.

15

Community Organizing in Romania

CommunityorganizingisnotacommoncitizenparticipationstrategyinRomaniaeventhoughelements of organizing – participatory identification of community problems, campaign tactics,confrontation with public authorities and others – have been present in community developmentprocessesandadvocacycampaignssincethe1990s.Themissingelementthatcommunityorganizingbrought, ifcomparedwithotherstrategies,wasthe intentionalandactivebuildingofmembershiporganizationswitha long-termcommitment to solvemultiple issues in their communities throughnegotiationandconfrontationwithdecision-makers.

SeminarsandtrainingsoncommunityorganizinghavebeenheldinRomaniaonasmallscalesince2000,buttheactualimplementationofthemethodhasstartedinDrobetaTurnuSeverinwithARCS(RomanianAssociationofCounsellingandSupport)andinBucharestwhereCeRe(TheResourceCenterforpublicparticipation)beganacommunityorganizingprojectin2009inseveralmediumandlow-incomeneighbourhoodsofBucharest.

1. Bucharest, Lacul Tei - A Neighbourhood with a Civic sparkProtests over neighbourhood issues

are not common in Bucharest, but onesuch protest was organized in Lacul Teineighbourhood in 2008, when peoplewentcrazyoverthe localauthorities’ lackof strategy related to parking. After longignoringtheissueofparkingspacescarcityinLaculTei,thelocalauthoritiesgaveafinalblowtocarownersinNovember2008,byenlistingonthemainboulevardunderanoparkingruleinordertoeasetrafficflow.Adayafterthedecisionwasmade,aprivatecontractorstartedtowingthecarsthatwereparkedonLaculTeiBoulevard.Thetowingbecameanongoingpracticeandthefineswerehuge. Ironically, themajorityof thetowedcarswereownedbyneighbourhoodpeoplethatusedtheboulevardasaparkingspace,inlackofabetteroption.

IttookamonthforpeopletoorganizethemselvesandinDecember,2008aprotestwasorganized,inordertodrawattentiontotheproblem–peopleintheneighbourhoodusedthepedestriancrossingstoblockthe

16

traffic foronehouronthemainboulevard.TheprotestcaughttheMayor’sattention,buthisonlyfeedbackwassendingpoliceenforcementtoensurethepeacefulnessofthedemonstration.Nootherfollow-upcamefromthe localauthorities,soneighbourhoodpeoplewentsilent.Nevertheless, theprotestdid leaveamarkinthehistoryofthecity,soCeRe’sstaffwasquicktorememberitwhendecidinguponwhichneighbourhoodsshouldbechosenforitsfirstcommunityorganizingprojectinBucharest.Communityorganizingwouldtakethenot-so-commoncivicsparkofLaculTei’sinhabitantstoanewlevel,enrichingitwithalong-termvision,betterissueplanning,andcitizencommitment.

Community Organizing BeginsCeRe’s intervention in Lacul Tei started in late 2009 in the traditional way, with a listening

process.Thecommunityorganizertalkedwithover120inhabitants,shop-ownersandschoolteachers,andbecamefamiliarwiththemostimportantissuesintheneighbourhood.Theorganizeralsobroughttogetherahandfulofpeoplethatwerereadytotakeactiontomaketheirneighbourhoodabetterplace.Thefirstactivityofthenewlyformedinitiativegroupwasapublicmeetingforneighbourhoodpeople,inApril2010.50inhabitantsattended,werepresentedwiththefindingsofthelisteningprocess,andvotedontheissuesthatshouldbetackledfirst.Notsurprisingly,parkingplacescarcitywasstillontopofthelist,togetherwithcitizensafety,thermalinsulationofblocksofflats,andcleanlinessissues.

Winning the Parking IssueThesewerethecircumstancesunderwhichLaculTeiinhabitantstookholdagainoftheirongoing

parking issue in late 2010. Members of the newly formed initiative group analyzed the problem,researched the current legislationandwentovervariouspossible solutionsby themselves. Itwasalengthyandtiresomeprocessfortheinitiativegroup,tofaceanissuethataffectsnotonlytheirneighbourhood but thewhole city and has no easy solution. Some of the group’smembers evendropped out when faced with such a complex matter. Nevertheless, assisted by the communityorganizerandanurbanplanner,thegroupfinallycameupwiththebestshorttermsolution–theydecidedtoasktheStreetAdministrationtoallowparkingonLaculTeiBoulevardinthe7.30pm–7.30amintervalduringweekdays,and24hours-a-dayduringweekendsandlegalholidays.Thesolutionhaditsbenefits–itinvolvednomajorcosts,wasfasttoputinpractice,anddidnotinterferewiththeday-timeissueofhightraffic.

Awell-reasonedpetitionwasdraftedandmembersoftheinitiativegroupaskedpresidentsofOwners Associations on Lacul Tei Boulevard to endorse it,which led to further consultationovertheproposedsolution.6Owners’Associations,representingover1000persons,decidedtoendorsethepetitionthatwassubmittedtotheStreetAdministrationofBucharestCityHallinJune2011.TheStreetAdministrationreadilyacceptedtheinhabitants’proposalandpromisedtodeliverbytheendofAugust,muchtothedelightof the initiativegroupwhopromotedthesuccesstotheneighbourhood.Buttimepassedandthechangedidnottakeplace.Theinertiaofthepublicadministrationhadnegativeconsequencesonpeople’senergyandtrustandtheorganizerneededtotaketheproblembacktotheneighbourhoodandbringnewpeopleintohelptheinitiativegrouppressurethedecision-makers.

17

After two months of phone calls, written complaints, and a face-to-face visit, one night inNovember2011,theawaitednoticeboardsappearedundertheno-parkingsignsonLaculTeiBoulevard,announcingthenewparkingrulestoeveryone.

Lacul Tei Initiative GroupPerseverancewasthekeytowinningtheparkingissue,buttherewasapricetopayingroup

members’energy.Sointhefallof2011,anewlisteningprocessstartedinLaculTeitoenlargetheinitiativegroupwithnewmembersandtakethepulseof theneighbourhoodonceagain.Thenewforcesthatarosewerevitalforputtingthefinalpressureneededtowintheparkingissue.Moreover,newissuesappearedthatpeoplearewillingtotakeon,witharenewedsenseofpossibility.Besidesaconcretealleviationoftheparkingsituation,confidenceandcredibilityfortheinitiativegroupwerethemostimportantgainsoftheorganizingprocessinLaculTei.

2. Bucharest, Callatis – making Promises Come True

The starting PointIfinneighbourhoodslikeLaculTeiorDrumulTaberei(Favoritarea),people’spreviousactivism

convincedustointerveneandencouragesporadiccivicactivitiestoturnintosystematicandstrategiccampaigns,thestorywasdifferentinCallatis’case.Residentsarethosewhocometouscomplainingabouttheirneighbourhood’sproblemsandaboutthelackofresponsefromtheCityHall.

Asinotherneighbourhoods,thecommunityorganizerstartedalisteningprocessthroughdoortodoorinterviews.Over100visitswithresidentsweredoneduringMay-June2010.TheproblemsweresimilartowhatwehaveheardinotherareasofBucharest,fromthelackofparking,poorcleaningofgreenspacesandstreets,citizensafetyandthermal insulationoftheblockofflats.Lotsoftheproblemsmentionedwere toobig to tackleand thegroupdecided toaddressatfirstasmallandwinnableissue–thecleaningandpavementofanalleybetweentwoschoolsthatconnectedtwomajorpartsoftheneighbourhood.Thealleywasinthestateofacountrysideroad,withnopavement,mud,tallgrassonthesides,butmuchmoredisturbing,itwasfullofgarbageandthehomeofstraydogs,whichmadeitdangerousforchildrentocross.Ittooktwomonths(September–October2010),ameetingwithalocalcouncillor,apetitionandapubliceventonthealleyforthelocaladministrationtocleanandpavethepassage.

Aftertheirfirstquicksuccess,thegroupscattereditsenergyinseveraldirections:greenspacesimprovements,bettergarbagecollection,separatewastecollectionandotherimportantthemes.Theiractions–petitionsandmeetingswithdifferentofficials–ledtonoclearconclusions.Ittookseveralmonthsfortheleadersofthegrouptoacceptthattheyneededamorefocusedandspecificapproach.Finally,inSeptember2011thegrouptookholdagainofthegreenspacesissue,thistimefocusingonthemodernizationofoneparkintheneighbourhood–TheIstruPark.

18

The modernization of the Istru Park – steps in the Campaign Beforeaddressinglocalauthorities,thegroupcollectedtheneedsandideasoftheirneighbours

concerningthemodernizationofthepark.Basedupontheirwishesandwiththehelpofanurbanplanner,theyputtogetheradetailedrequestonwhattheparkshouldlooklikeinthefuture(replacementofbrokenandpurchaseofnewplaygroundequipmentfordifferentgroupages,replacementofthesandsurfacewithsomethingmoredurable,andsoon).Therequest,submittedtothepublicadministration(ADPU)andtheLocalCouncil,wasendorsedby80signaturesfromtheresidentslivingintheproximityofthepark.

InOctober,2011thegrouporganizedapubliceventinalocalschoolwithatwo-foldpurpose:bringingresidentstogetheraroundacommongoal–thepark’srenovation–andusingtheirpresencetoputpressureonthepublicofficialsinvitedtogiveapositiveanswertotheirrequests.Theeventgathered around 100 persons - children, parents and grandparents - all endorsers of the park’smodernization.Pressuredbytheaudience,thepublicofficialattendingthegathering–thedeputydirectorofADPU-gavepositiveanswersto80%ofthepeople’srequests.

Fearing that promises will remain unaccomplished, the group had a face to face meetingwith the same deputy director following the public event in order to further develop the park’smodernizingplan.Themeetingendedwitha reportsignedby thedeputydirector,which includedpromisesmade during the public event and the commitment to give an official written responseaboutthemodernizationoftheparkinDecember2012.Theexpectedanswerdidn’tcomeandgavethe group no alternative but to continue to pressure public officials by email and phone in orderforpromisesmadeintheFall tocometrue.InJanuary,thedeputydirectorcamewithananswer,afterreceivingmorecallsfromthegroup:technically,theparkwouldberehabilitated;itwasjustamatteroffinances,andthewaytheywillallocatemoneyfortheparkinthelocalbudgetfor2012. Thefocusofthegroupmovedfromnegotiatingthelistofdemands,tomakingsuretheparkwillbeincludedonthe2012localbudget.

Grasping the Opportunities InJanuary2012,thelocalbudgetdraftwaspublishedontheCityHall’swebsite.Anxiousthatthe

budgetdidnotexplicitlyprovidefundsforthemodernizationoftheIstruPark,Callatisgroupjoinedforceswithanothergroupinthedistrict-FavoritInitiative–andwithCeReandcalledforapublicdebateonthelocalbudget.Atfirst,theCityHallrefusedtoorganizeit,eventhoughitwasanillegaldecision tomake,andapproved the localbudgetas itwas initiallypresented. InFebruary,as thegroupspreparedtoattackthislatterdecision,theCityHallpublicizedanamendedbudgetproposal.Onceagain,thegroupswithCeRe’shelpgraspedtheopportunityandaskedforapublicdebate.Thistime,theCityHallacceptedtoholdameetingonthe28thofFebruary.ThepublicdebateorganizedbytheCityHallwasasurprisetobothleadersandorganizers.Wellpreparedforathoroughdiscussiononthebudget,thecitizengroupsremainedvulnerableinfrontoftheMayor’sstrategythatinvitedhisownsympathizersatthedebatetotalkaboutlotsofdifferentissuesthatwerenotonthemeeting’sagenda.Moreover,theMayortriedtoassociatethegroupswiththeoppositionparties,implyingfromtimetotimetheircooperation,astrategythatagitatedhissympathizersagainstthegroups.

19

20

21

DespitetheaggressivereactionoftheMayorinoffice,CallatissnatchedthepromisethattheCityHallwouldallocate290000RON,approximately65000euros,forthemodernizationoftheparkandthattheworkingwouldstartonthe1stofApril2012.

A Bitter success Twomore intense negotiationmeetingswith theDirector of the public space administration

followedthepublicdebate.Finally,onApril8th,theactualreconstructionworkintheparkbegan,andthegroupsawtheculminationoftheirlongtermcommitmentandeffort.Theyhavewontheissueandconvincedpublicauthoritiestotaketheirmodernizationplanintoaccount.Mostrequestsoftheinitiativegroupwereimplementedandafter9months,residentsoftheareabenefitfromarefurbishedplayground,asoccerandbasketballfield,andgreenspaceimprovements.Nevertheless,thebattleleftscares.Themanipulation,aggressivereactionsandimpliedthreatsfromtheMayorandotherofficialsintheCityHalldiscouragedandsometimesdividedthegroup’smembersthroughoutthecampaign.The reactionof thedecision-makerswasnot theonlyobstacle thegrouphad to face.Conflicts inthecommunityaroseaboutthewaytheparkshouldlooklikeandbeequippedwith.Managingthedisagreementsstolealotofthegroup’senergythatfeltburnedoutafterthecampaign.However,twomonthsafterwards,theremainingmembersofthegrouparefeelingreadytogoonandorganizeapubliceventtocelebratethepark’smodernization,graspnewissuesforactionandmoreimportantlyfindnewpeoplethatarewillingtogetinvolvedontheirside.

22

Community Organizing in slovakia

CommunityorganizingwasintroducedtoSlovakiain1994whentheNationalDemocraticInstitute(NDI – an American institute helping democratic transition) launched an initial project in TrencinwhereNGOscametogethertosolveseverallocalproblems.Twoyearslater,asecondphaseoftheworkwasintroducedwithSlovaksbeinghiredandtrainedtobeorganizers.Thisworkcontinuedforthreeyearsandresultedinorganizingworkstartedinthreecitiesandeventuallyexpandedtothreeothers.Numerousgroupsbeganlisteningprocesses,launchedcampaignsandwonvictoriesacrossthecountry.TheCenterforCommunityOrganizingwasformedin1999.

The work continued to grow including the formation of a separate country-wide citizens’organization, Citizens in Action. CCO worked in approximately ten different cities and villages inSlovakiainthefirsteightyears.Butduetolackoffunding,CCOcurrentlylimitsitsworktoZvolenandBanskaBystrica.

TheCenterforCommunityOrganizing(CCO)wasoneofthefoundingmembersofECON.CCOhashelped a number of other countries in the region to start up thework of organizing throughtrainingandconsultation.CCOcontinuestostrivetonotonlysolveproblemsinourneighbourhoodsbut also to build long-term citizen organizations. Despite the strong resistance to building thesetypesoforganizations,CCOislearninghowtodothisbetterandprogresscontinuestobemadeinaddressingthis.

Banska Bystrica, Radvan – shell campaign – Winning against all OddsTheRadvanneighbourhood is a Socialist constructed neighbourhood in the southern side of

Banska Bystricawhichwas built in the early 1960’s. There are approximately 10,000 inhabitantslivingthere.Inthespringof2000,severalcitizens learnedaboutplanstobuildanewgasstationinthepedestriancenteroftheneighbourhood.Theywantedtopreventthegasstationfrombeingbuilt inthis location.TheyapproachedtheCenterforCommunityOrganizingforhelpinorganizingacampaign.Theyhadbeenexcluded fromparticipating in theplanningandunderstood that theyneededanapproachthatrequiredaction.

Agroupgot formedtoblockthegasstation frombeingbuilt in thepedestriancenterof theneighbourhood.TheinitialthreeactivistswhoapproachedtheCenterforCommunityOrganizinghadlearned about this approach from seeing several other community groups in BanskaBystricawincampaignsintheircommunitiesandtheactivistsrealizedthatsomethinglikethiswouldbeneededtosuccessfullyopposetheproposedconstruction.One-on-oneinterviewswereusedintheworkaftertheinitialleadershipgrouphadformedandseveralactionshadtakenplace.

Therewereaseriesofactionsthattookplaceoverthecourseofthetwoandahalfyears(2000–2003).Themainactionsincluded:

InitialpetitionwasdeliveredtoCityCouncil.Noonewoulddisclosewhothegascompanywasbutthegroupknewwhothelocalinvestorswere(thistookplacebeforethe„FreedomofInformationLaw“wasinplace).

23

PublicrallyonthesitewherethegasstationwastobebuiltwhichwasheldthedaybeforecrucialvotebyCityCouncilrelatedtoapprovingtheproject.TheMayorattendedtherallyandmetprivatelywithleadersattheendoftherallytoclarifytheprocessthefollowingday.Adelegationofleaderswent,butfoundthatCityCouncilwasinrecessandthatthevotehadalreadybeentakeninfavouroftheproject.

Preparinganddisplayinglargebanneracrosstwobalconies,veryvisibleinthepedestriancenterwherethegasstationwastobebuilt.Thebannerreportedhowtheelectedrepresentativesfromthatneighbourhoodhadvotedontheissueregardingapprovaloftheproject.

PublicmeetingwiththeMayortoattempttogethimtoagreetonotapprovetheproposedproject.ThegrouprealizedtheywerenotlikelytobesuccessfulatthismeetingbuttheywantedtolettheMayorknowthattheywereseriousandtocontinuetoputpublicpressureonhimtotakecitizensconcernsintoconsideration.

Therewereaseriesofactionsrelatedtoattendingrequiredpublichearingsrelatedtothedevelopmentproject.Authoritiesknewthatmanycitizenswantedtoattendthehearingandopposetheproject.Theyattemptedtomanipulatetheprocessandtopreventcitizensfrombeingabletoattend.TheirmanipulativeactionsprecipitatedthefilingofalawsuitwiththeConstitutionalCourt.Thisactionbecameacriticalaspectofthecampaignasboththelocal

24

investorsandShellOilhadtoaccountforthefactthattherewasapendinglegalactioninfrontoftheConstitutionalCourtandthussignificantlysloweddowntheproject.

Afterayearandahalf,citizensfinallylearnedthatitwasShellOilwhoplannedtolocateagasstationatthissite.TheleadersinvitedtheDirectorofShellSlovakia,tojointhemforadiscussionabouttheproject.Heagreedandpromisedtotaketheirconcernsseriously.Howeverfromthattime,heproceededtoignoreallletters,callsande-mailsrelatedtotheproject.

SeveralmonthsfollowingthemeetingwiththeDirectorofShell,thecitizensinitiativejoinedwith five other citizen initiatives from around the country and prepared an initial actionofholdingaprotest infrontofShellheadquarters inBratislavatwoweeksafterthejointmeeting.Amonthlater,protestswereorganizedinfrontofShellstationsinfivedifferentcities inSlovakia includingBanskaBystrica.Again, thepublicmessagesweredirected toShellDirector.

TheMayorsetupameetingwithallpartiestoseeifanalternativesitecouldbefoundforthegasstation.Thelocalinvestors,ShellandrepresentativesoftheRadvaninitiativewereinvited.Unfortunately,Shellandtheinvestorsdecidedamonthlatertonotacceptanyofthealternativesitesofferedbythecity.

25

TheleadersagreedtoconductatwohourblockadeonaFridayafternoonwhichwasoneoftheirbusiesttimes.ThegroupalsousedthiseventtolaunchaboycottofShell.TheyaskedpeopletosignformsthattheywouldrefusetobuyShellgasandotherproductsuntiltheyagreedtonotbuildthestationinRadvan.

Members of the Central and Eastern European Citizens Network also agreed to join theboycott. Theyencouraged theirmembers toboycottand joined in sending letters to theEuropeanShellheadquartersinLondon.

AnotherrallywasheldinfrontofShellheadquartersinBratislavato“celebrate“theNameDayoftheShellDirector.ThirtypeoplefromacrossSlovakiawentwithpartyhatsandnoisemakersalongwiththefirst1000boycottforms.

WithintwomonthsoftheNameDayparty,Shellannouncedtheirdecisiontodroptheirplansto construct the station inRadvan. Thegas stationwasnot built.Nearly ninemonths afterShellannounced theirdecision tostop theconstructionplans, theConstitutionalCourtfinallyheard thecitizens‘complaint.Thecourtagreedthatthepublichearingprocesshadbeenmanipulated.IthelpedtosetanewlegalprecedentforpublichearingsinSlovakia.Withinafewmonthsofthevictory,anothersmallerissuerelatedtoaproposedchangeinthispublicareawasintroduced.TheCityapproachedthecitizeninitiativetoinvitethemtositdownandnegotiatewhatwouldbedonewiththisnewproject.Thesystemhadchanged.

Manychallengeswereencounteredinthiscampaign,includingthemainleadersbeingthreatenedwiththelossoftheirjobs.Theheadlineaftertheblockadewas“citizensterrorize”gasstation.Activistswereconstantlypublicallycriticizedforblockingdevelopmentinthecity.Thegroupheldtogetherandsupportedtheirmemberswhowerethreatenedandcriticized.

The campaignwas unique, however, in several ways. It startedwith a crisis as opposed toa listening process. It lasted more than two-and-a-half years. The campaign was attempting toinfluenceabusinessaswellasgovernment.Therewastheneedforconstantaction.Theevaluationthatfollowedthecampaignwasthatthe“power“ofthegroupcamemorefromtheconstantannoyanceratherthanmassesofpeople.Finally,thecampaignrequiredthesupportofgroupsacrossSlovakiaandthenintheCEEregiontohaveenoughpower.

26

Community Organizing in the Republic of moldova

CommunityorganizinghasbeengrowingandwinningvictoriesinsouthernMoldovasince2007.Plansareunderwaytoexpandcommunityorganizinginotherpartsofthecountryincomingyears.

Cantemir and Cahul, moldova – from scepticism and Threats to hope and victoriesInspiredbycommunityorganizingtrainingsinRomaniaandParis,aMoldovanactivistaccepted

thechallengeofdoingcommunityorganizinginhertownofCantemir.In2007,shedid70face-to-facevisitswithresidents,listeningforconcernsandvisionstheyheldfortheirtownof5,000residents.Theirfirsteffortwasaself-helpproject,raisingmoneyandvolunteeringtorepaintandrenovatetheirchildren’s’elementaryschoolcafeteria.“Ifirstneededtogivethevolunteersanexperienceofworkingtogetherforthecommongood,anexperiencetheyoftendidnothaveduringprevioustimes,”statedthecommunityorganizer.

Following this first success, the community organizer trained 11 volunteers to conduct 210additional face-to-face visits. In January, 2009 fifty persons who had been visited attended anassemblyinwhichtheyvotedtoaddresstheproblemofgarbagecollectionforresidentsinhighriseapartmentbuildings.Noadequate containers for garbageexistedand collectionswere infrequent,

27

creatingserioushealthrisksandalackofbeautyintheneighbourhoods.Followingafewmonthsofresearch,theirnewlyformedcommunityorganizationentitled“AssociationofCitizenswithInitiative”beganmeetingwiththeMayor,towncouncil,andtown-contractedprivategarbagecompany.Whilethecitizensnegotiatedingoodfaithandtheirdemandswerereasonable,tensionsgrewwithpublicofficials, leadingthecouncilmemberstoaccusetheorganizerandvolunteersofbeing“terrorists”.ButtheAssociationpersisted,eventuallywinningnewfenced-ingarbagecontainersandmoreregulargarbagepick-ups.

Inearly2011,theAssociationofCitizenswithInitiativeswereawardedagrantfromtheOpenSociety/SorosMoldovaFoundationforaneight-monthcampaigntocontinuethecommunityorganizinginCantemirandtoexpandtothreesurroundingvillages.Thecommunityorganizerandanassistanthelpedcitizenstoforminitiativegroupsoffourresidentsineachofthethreenewvillageswhothenconducteddozensofface-to-facevisitsto identifypriority issues.InDecember,2012aconferencewasheldwith77personsfromthefourvillagesandguestfromothervillages.Eachgroupreportedontheirissuesuccesses–therenovationofasportcomplexforyoungpeople,thepurchaseofneededmedicalequipmentforthevillagehospital,therenovationofamainbusstop,andthebuildingofachildren’splayground.Inallcases,thevolunteershadusedcommunityorganizingstrategiestolobbyandpressure their local villagegovernments to invest resources, aswell as, conducted their ownfundraisingcampaignstoaugmentgovernmentfunding.Andaremarkablethingoccurredduringa

28

closingquestionandanswerperiodofthisDecemberconference.AfterbeingaccusedbytheCantemirtowncounciltwoyearspreviouslyofbeing“terrorists”becauseresidentshadbecomeactive,aMayorfromanewvillageaskedattheDecemberconference,“Whenwillyoucometomyvillagetohelporganizeourresidents?Weneedactivecitizensinourvillage!”

AnotherpersonwhoattendedthecommunityorganizingtrainingsinRomaniaandPariscamefrom theCONTACTorganization inCahul,Moldova. In late2010, shewasapproachedbyaCahulresidentwhotoldofamajorproblem inhisneighbourhoodof threehigh-riseapartmentbuildingsandday-carecenter.Afieldinthemiddleoftheneighbourhoodwhichhadbeenpreviouslypromisedbythecitytobedevelopedasaparkwasnowbeingsoldtoadeveloperwhowantedtobuildahigh-riseofficebuildinganddiscoonitsgroundfloor.Residentsfeltbetrayedandangry,butwerescaredtoact.Theresidentbecameavolunteercommunityorganizing,visitingresidents,buildingtrustandrespect,andbroughtthemtogetherforcommonaction.Theirresearchrevealedthatthefieldhadbeensoldillegallytothedeveloper.OnaSaturdaymorningintheSpringof2011,over200residentsmarchedtocityhalltoopposethesale.Policeapproachedtobreakuptherallyoutsidethecityhall,buteventuallybackedoffwhentheylearnedwhytheresidentswerethere.“Twoyearsago,thistypeofrallywouldhaveneveroccurredinCahul.Peopleweretooscared.Butnow,peoplearebeginningtostandupfortheirrights,”statedtheorganizer.Followingthemarch,rally,andmuchmediacoverage,thesalewasstopped.Thefieldwaspreservedandwiththehelpoffundraisingandvolunteereffortsoftheresidents,playgroundequipmentandpicnicpavilionsarebeinginstalled.

Evaluation and Next steps for Community Organizing in moldovaCommunity organizing can occur in a “strong market” or a “weak market” environment.

Thismeansthat insomecitiesandvillages,governmentalandotherresourcesexistbutarenotfairlydistributed, inwhichcasethedemandsofcommunityorganizationsrevolvearoundthefairdistributionofservicesandimprovements.Butina“weakmarket”environment,localcityorvillagegovernments are lacking the resources to help residents solve their problems and achieve theirvisions.ThisisthecaseinCantemirandCahul,Moldova.ThishashadtwomainconsequencesforthecommunityorganizingbytheAssociationofCitizenswithInitiativeandCONTACT.First, theyhaveinitiallyturnedtothegovernmentforhelp,butthenhavehadtoalsoaskresidentstosharetheirresourcestomakeneededimprovements.Secondly,theAssociationandCONTACTrecognizethatforsignificantchangetooccurintheirvillagesandthroughoutMoldova,communityorganizingneedstoexpandandconnectwitheachothertodemandreformsattheregionalandnationallevel.TheAssociationofCitizenswith InitiativeandCONTACTare currentlybuilding relationshipswithfundersandotherstohelpdevelopalong-termplanfortheexpansionofcommunityorganizingtoothervillagesandcities,includingthecreationofa“MoldovanCenterforCommunityOrganizing”whichcanprovidetraining,consulting,andhelpunitelocaleffortsaroundregionalandnationalissuecampaigns.

ResidentsandpublicauthoritiesinCantemirandCahulhavemovedduringthepastfouryearswithcommunityorganizingfromscepticismandthreatsagainstthem,tohopeandvictories.Andtheyhaveavisionforthefutureofbuildingsufficientcitizenpowertobeabletowinvictoriesataregional,national,aswellas,locallevel.

29

Community Organizing in Poland

Communityorganizingmethodswereusedbyanticommunistopposition inthe1970’sand1980’s.Themovement,fromfewpersonsatthebeginningevolvedstep-by-stepintoatradeunionwhichorganizedafewmillionsofpeople.IthaddirectinfluenceonchangingthepoliticalsysteminPoland.

AcharacteristicofPolishsocietyisthatinhabitantsorganizeanduniteintimesofcrisisandcivilunrest.Inthesituationofpeaceandstabilitypeopledonotfeelcommunityspiritandhavethemindsetofonlyorganizingtheirpersonallifeandtheincreaseoftheirmaterialgoods.Theresponsetotheatomizationofindividualscanbecommunityorganizing,whichshowspeoplehowtocooperateandmakesthemmoreactiveinworkingforthecommonwell-being.TheBonaFidesAssociationisthefirstnon-profitorganizationinPolandwhichhasstartedtoworkwithalocalcommunityusingthismethod.

Katowice – solving a Common Neighborhood Problem: Lack of ParkingKatowice isacity inSilesia insouthernPoland.It isthecentraldistrictoftheUpperSilesian

Metropolis.InKatowicelivealmost300,000habitants.Itisthecenterofscience,culture,industry,businessandtransportation,butalsoisalargecoalandsteelcenter.

The Bona Fides Association is an independent non-profit and politically unaffiliated non-governmentalorganizationwhosemainprojectsaimtoincreasethequalityandtransparencyofthelocalpubliclife,alongwiththereinforcementofthecivicparticipationinmakingimportantdecisionsregardingthecity.TheBonaFidesAssociationstartedtoimplementacommunityorganizingprojectinJune2011.

Choosing the NeighbourhoodInthecourseofthefirstmonth,thecommunityorganizerchoseaplace,whereshewantedto

startacommunityorganizingprocess.InKatowicetherearemanycentersoflocalactivityinwhichpeopleusemethodsofsocialwork,buttheorganizerwantedtostartorganizinginadistrictwheretherewerenoinstitutionsdoingsuchactivities.OneoftheoldestdistrictsofKatowice–Bogucice–waschosen.Peoplewholivethereworkedinthenowclosedcoalminesandotheroccupations.It’saneglecteddistrictwhereonecanseeanoldpartfromthe19thcenturyandsomenewhousingestates.Whentheorganizerstarted,shetalkedwithpeopletogettoknowthemandtheareasofpotentialfutureactivities.Shedidaninitialanalysisanddecidedtoworkwiththecommunityofsmall,greenhousingestatebythenameofFranciszekŚcigała.Shemadethisdecision,becauseshelearnedaboutthecommunity’sattempttosolvelocalproblems.Itwasasignthatpeoplelivingtherewantedtodosomethingtogether.

30

A difficult start Atthebeginningofherwork,thecommunityorganizerwaslookingforcontactstowell-known

peoplefromthisarea,butthisprovedunsuccessful.Talkingtopeople inaparkandinthestreetsalsowasnoteffective.Peopleweredistrustfully,didnotwanttomeet,anddidnotwanttogivetheiraddressesandphonenumbers.

Sotheorganizerdecidedtogodoor-knockingaccompaniedbyanotherBonaFidesworkerorvolunteer.Thelisteningprocesstookthreemonths.Duringthistime,80inhabitantsofBogucicewerevisitedandthishelpedattractagroupofpeopleandsomelocalleaders.

InOctober,2011theorganizerstartedtoworkwiththeleadersidentified.TheorganizerandleadersarrangedthefirstmeetingwhichtookplaceinNovemberwithinhabitantsofBogucice.25peoplewereinvitedtothismeetingbutonly7came.Itwasnotabigsuccessbecauseofthelowattendance,buttheleadershandleditverywell.Duringthemeetingtheydebatedaboutthenameofourthegroupanddiscussedproblemsthattheorganizerhadlearnedaboutearlierinthelisteningprocess.Becausefewpeopleattendedthemeeting,therewasalsoadiscussionabouthowtoattractnewmembers.Theleadersdecidedtoinformtheirneighboursandfriends,aswellas,postupinvitationsforthenextmeetinginapartmentbuildingstaircases.

31

Eventhoughtheattendancewasmuchhigher-30peopleattendedthemeetinginDecember-newchallengesarose-someofthepeople,livinginadifferentpartofKatowice,expectedtheorganizerandleaderstosolvetheirproblems.Whenitwasclarifiedthattheresidentswilltakeproblemsintotheirownhands,someoftheparticipantsleftthemeeting.Atthebeginningitwasalittlechaoticanditwasverydifficulttocontrolthegroup.Notallofthegoalswereachieved–thenameofthegroupwasnotdecidednorweretasksdistributed.Thegroupalsodidnotdecidewhichproblemtosolve.Butitwasaverygoodexercisefortheleadersandanimportantlessonforthefuture.

SinceNovember,2011theinhabitants’meetingshavebeentakingplaceregularlyandaregettingbetterandbetter.Leadersarebecomingprofessionalsinthisfield.Forafewmonthsthegrouphaddifficultieschoosingawinnableissue.Thegroupdisperseditsenergyandideasinlotsofdirectionsthatprovedtobedeadlocks,fromcashdispensers,anddog’sfaeces,toanareaofformerallotments.Leadersstartedbeingfrustratedbythelackofaction.

FinallythegrouppickedtheissuethatKatowice’sMayorhadnotvisitedBoguciceforalongtime.ThegroupdecidedtoarrangeameetingwithhimandsentaninvitationtotheCityHall.AfewdayslatertheMayorofKatowiceacceptedtheinvitation,butitturnedoutthatitwasnottheonlyinvitationhe accepted – some other local organizations and institutions joined themeeting. The group feltthattheyclaimedourinvitationtotheircredit.Nevertheless,themeetingturnedouttobeimportantbecausethegroupachievedoneofitsgoal–theydecidedtopromotetheirnewname–“NeighbourlyInitiative”or„NaszeOsiedleŚcigały”inPolish.

Choosing and Working on the Parking Issue At themeeting inMarch,2012 thegroupchoseaproblemtoworkon– the lackofparking

spacesnearthehousingestate.Theyinvestigatedthismatterandlearnedhowitcouldbechanged.ThegroupchoseaplacewhereaparkinglotcouldbebuiltandalsolearnedthattheCityHalldoesnothaveplansrelatedtoit.Thegroupdecidedtoact.Theygatheredargumentsinfavouroftheirproposalandchecked:

howmuchparkingspace the inhabitantsof theŚcigałyestateneed(howmanycarsareparkedingeneralandhowmanyofthemareparkedonthestreet);

ifinhabitantswantnewplacestopark;

howmanygarageshavebeenknockeddownrecently;

howbigistheareachosenbyusandifinthisplaceaparkinglotcanbebuilt;

howmanyparkinglotshavebeenbuiltinKatowiceinthelast2years;

howmuchmoneydoesKatowiceCityHallallocatetosuchaims?

Firstthegrouppromotedtheideaofmoreparkingspacesintheneighborhood.Theyorganizedaneventrightontheplacewheretheywantedtohavetheparkinglot.Thevolunteersworkedhard,craftingcoloredcarsfromcardboardandcuttingoutphotosfromnewspapersandputtingthemon‘ourfuturecarpark’.AtthesametimetheysentalettertotheMayorofKatowiceandrequestedameetinginhisofficeinJune.Duringtheeventthegroupcollectedsignaturesonasupportlistfortheidea.

32

TheyinformedtheinhabitantsoftheŚcigałyestateandthemediaabouttheevent.Thiseventwasabigsuccess.In2hoursthevolunteerscollectedover100signaturesandpeoplehadareallypositiveattitude.TheeventwasheldonSaturdayandnolaterthanMondaythevolunteersgotinformationfromtheCityHallthattheMayorhadacceptedtheirinvitationandwouldmeetthemintheŚcigałyestatethesameweek!

A Quick victory When the volunteers and Mayormet and walked through the Bogucice neighborhood, they

toucheduponlotsoftopics,butforthegroupthemostimportantonewasthatoftheparkinglot.Representativesofthegroupshowedtheplacewheretheywantedtohavetheparkinglotandgavereallystrongargumentsinsupportoftheiridea.Thegroupwassurethatsuchdecisionscouldnotbemadewithoutpriorconsultingwithexperts,sotheyaskedforsuchameeting.AftertheconversationwiththeMayor,hetalkedwithemployees/expertsfromhisofficeandafewminuteslatercamebacktothevolunteers,unexpectedlypromisingtoadapttheareachosenbythegroupforaparkinglot,tobebuiltbyAugust2012!ImmediatelythegroupinformedtheinhabitantsofBoguciceandthemediaaboutthepromisemadebytheMayor.ThegrouphadnotimetocelebratethepromisebecausetheparkinglotconstructionbeganinearlyJuneandfinishedonJune21st!Thegroupachieveditsgoalinlesstimethanexpected!

33

Conclusion and Next steps Thegroupofresidentsarewonderinghowtheymanagedtoachievetheirgoalinsuchashort

time.TheynoticedthatinPolandpeoplestrugglefortheirneedsandrightsinadifferentwaythanthey did – often they struggle for support first and thenwhen they do not receive any responsefromtheauthoritiestheydecidetolookforthissupportamongcitizens–forexample,theycollectsignatures.Officialsarenotusedtothewayofdealingwithproblemswhenpeoplefirstworkontheproblemsthemselvesandthenasktheofficialstosolvethem.VeryimportantinthiscasewasalsothesupportoftheBonaFidesAssociation,becauseBonaFidesiswell-knownbythelocalgovernmentasawatchdogorganizationthatchangedalotthecityofKatowicethroughtheirpersistence,sometimesinspiteofnegativereactionsfromthelocalgovernment.

Nowthattheparkinglotisdone,theresidentsgroupisplanningtoorganizeabigeventbythenameof‘aParkingLotDay’.Theresidentsgroupwanttocelebratethisfirstandsoimportantsuccesswiththewholecommunity!TheyarealsoplanningaFall,2012trainingthatwillleadtoanextlisteningprocess,research,andproblemsolvingintheneighborhood.

34

Community Organizing in hungary

Lookingback into thehistoryofHungarywedonotfind toomany tracesoforganizing.Theemergenceoftheworkers’movementattheendofthe19thcenturyandthefirsttradeunionslateronwerethemostimportantscenesforbringingpeopletogetherinfightingforchangesandimprovementin their lives.During40yearsofsocialist realm–similarly tootherEasternEuropeancountries–thewholesocietyandeconomywerebuilton the fetishismofsomekindofcommunityapproach.Peoplewereforcedintocooperatives,theywereobligedtodovoluntaryworkwiththeircolleagueson“communistSaturdays”,andseveralotherexamplesof“forcedcommunities”couldbelistedhere.Probablyourhistoryisoneimportantreasonoftheverystrongindividualismandresistanceagainstinvolvement indifferent typesofgroupsandcommunitiesnow.ComparedwithWesternEuropeancountriesorwiththeUS,therateofpeopleholdingmembershipincivilsocietyorganizations,churchgroups,orotherformsoforganizedsocietyisprettylowhere.

AnotheraspecttobetakenintoaccountisthatdespitetheverylargenumberofcivilsocietyorganizationsinHungarythereisalackoforganizationswitharealbaseoforganizedpeople.Whenitcomestoorganizationsdealingwithsocialissuesthevastmajorityofthemareserviceproviders.Manyofthemaredependingonservicecontractswiththelocalgovernments,andthefactthataveryhighproportionoforganizations’incomeiscomingfromthestate–whichmakesanyadvocacyworkandconfrontationwiththegovernmentverydifficult–isageneralprobleminourcountry.

1. Budapest - Giving Power to Those Lacking It the most: Empowering People Living in Poverty through Community Organizing

Empowerment of the Poor – Why Organizing?After several yearsofexperienceswithadvocacywork forpoorpeople,TheHungarianAnti-

PovertyNetworkrealizedthatinordertocreatemorepoweramongthemandtobemorecrediblewehavetosystematicallyorganizeourconstituencies.Whileuntil2010thegovernmentsweremoreorlessopentogettingengagedindialoguewithcivilsociety,therecentdecisionmakingsystemistotallyclosed.Askingpoorpeopleabouttheirproblemsandneedsandchannellingtheirdemandsintothedebatesthroughadvocatesisnotenoughandnotworkinganymore.Astherecentgovernmentunderstandsonly the languageofpowerwehavetoshowthatwehave it. Inorder tobeable tomobilizethousandsofpeopleinpovertyinthefuturewehavestartedorganizingfirstsmallgroupsfromthem.

TheHungarianAntiPovertyNetworkwassetupasaninformalcooperationofcivilsocietyorganizationsworking for amore inclusive society andpoverty reduction inHungary in2004.TheNetworkhas150memberorganizationsnowandisamemberoftheEuropeanAnti-PovertyNetwork.TheNetworkhasquiteabitofexperienceinworkingwithpoorpeople.Wehaveorganizedtrainings,meetings,seminarsfortheminorderto improvetheirskills,makethemabletogettheirvoicesheardandstrengthentheirparticipationintheNetworkandinthewholesociety.Asaresultofsixyearsofworkinthisfieldwehaveaquitestablenetworkofactivistlivinginpoverty

35

alloverthecountry.Theyaremanytimesindividualsfromdifferentcities,sowewouldneversaywehaveabroadbase,butwehaveabasistobuildonandconsiderorganizingatnationallevel.

Choosing a ProblemAspovertyisaverybroadandcomplextopicit issimplyimpossibletoapproachandinvolve

allthepooranddealwithalltheproblemsatthesametime.Thatiswhywedecidedtopickuponeproblemandstartdoingoutreachandorganizingamongpeoplewhoareaffectedbyit.Inordertomakesureourmemberorganizationswillget involved intheorganizingprocessand inour futurecampaignwewantedtochooseatopicwhichisconsideredtobeimportantbythem.Asaresultofcoupleofinterviewsandasocalledcampaignmeetingwiththemweendedupwiththeproblemofunemploymentandspecificallytherecentsystemofpublicwork.

Tocutalongstoryshort:unemployedpeoplewhoareentitledtosocialassistancehavetodopublicworkotherwisetheylosetheirbenefit.Publicworkusuallymeanslowqualityjobs(e.g.cleaningthestreet)for3-6monthswithbadworkingconditionsandforasalarymuchlowerthantheofficialminimumwage.Studieshaveclearlyshowedthatpublicworkisnotapathwaytorealemploymentandtheactivitiespeoplehavetodoareoftenmeaningless(e.g.theycutthegrassbyhandwhileitcouldbedoneeasilyandmorequicklywithamachine).Approximately200thousandpeopleareinvolvedintothesystemannually.

36

how We started Community Organizing?Afteridentifyingthetopicwewerefacedwithcoupleofquestionslikewhereandhowwecan

reachpeopledoingpublicwork;whatkindofresourcescanweinvolve;whomightbeouralliesandwhoareourenemiestokeepoureyesonthem?Wearestillintheoutreachandlisteningprocess,sowedonothavealltheanswers,butsome.

Where?

Public workers are sent by the employment office to work at different venues for differentinstitutionsandorganizations.InahugecitylikeBudapesttheygetawidevarietyoftasks:someof them (with university degrees) do assistant jobs at schools or for the localmunicipality whilethosewithlowereducationareinvolvedinpublicsanitation.Itmeansthattherearegroupsofthem–probablytheonesinthemostdisadvantagedsituation–whichareavailableinpublicareaswhileotherscannotbecontactedthisway.

Sothewayhowwestarted,after identifyingthreedistrictsofBudapest,wherewework inthefirstphaseofourorganizingprocess,isbylookingforpublicplaceswherepublicworkerscanbeaccessed.Inordertofindthewaytotheothergroups,wecontactedtheemploymentofficesandaskedforinformationontheinstitutionsandorganizationswherepublicworkersareemployed.Aftergettingtheselistswewillcontactthemandaskforprovidingopportunityformeetingpeopleworkingforthem.

How?

Wemadethefirstpilotinterviewswithpeoplewhoweregatheredtogetherbythelocalmunicipalityforus.Thewayhowwemetthemwasveryeasyandcomfortableforus,butmightbefrustratingforthem.Theywereselectedbymunicipalityworkers,theywereorderedtocometotheinterviewandourorganizermettheminthebuildingofthelocalmunicipality.Thoughthesecircumstances,twooutoffivepeopleseemedtobeinterestedtogetinvolvedinanorganizedgroup.

When thinking about contacting people doing public work in the streetswe realized thatitmightbeeasierifwehavesomethinginourhandwhatwecandelivertopeople.Thatiswhywemadeaverysimpleleaflet–mentioningsomeproblemswithpublicworkandthecontactsofourorganizer.

With whom?

AsthereisonlyonecommunityorganizerworkingfortheNetwork,wealwayslookedforwaysofinvolvingotherpeopleasvolunteersintotheprocess.Sofartherearetwomaingroupsofpeoplevolunteeringforusinthisprocess.ThefirstgroupcomesfromouractivistslivinginpovertyinthecountrysidewhoareinterestedinlearningaboutorganizingandtakingpartinspreadingtheprocessoutsideofBudapest.Thesecondgroupconsistsofpeopleinvolvedinalearningcircleoncommunityorganizing;manyofthemtookpartina6-weekexchangevisitonorganizingintheUS.Thelearningcirclewassetupbypeoplewhoarededicatedeithertodoingorganizinginpracticeorpromotingit

37

andworkingoncreatingitsprofessionalbackground(bytrainingsandsupervision,etc.)inHungarybeginningayearago.

Ourorganizerandthevolunteersmeetregularlytodiscussonthemethodstobeusedandtoplantheactualactivitiestobedone.Weareconvincedthatthiswayofworkingisnotonlyimportantbecause it multiplies our resources but because it also contributes to developing possible futurecommunityorganizers.

What’s Next?Asthenextmajorstepsinourorganizingprocessweplantohavethefirstcommunitymeeting

wherewecanworkondeepeningourpersonalrelationshipswithpeople,buildingthegroupandstarttheissueidentificationprocess.Afteridentifyingtheissue(s)toworkonwecanstartdevelopingthestrategyofthefirstjointcampaign.

In linewith thebasicprinciplesofcommunityorganizingwewillalways focusoncontinuousdevelopmentofourpossibleleaders.Asanimportantpartofthisdevelopmentprocesswewillprovideabasictrainingonpowerrelations,basicsoforganizing,outreachandinvolvement.

Afterhavingapproachedonlycoupleofpeopleitmightseemtobeahugechallengetobuildsustainablegroupsandorganizationsofpeopleinpoverty,butweareconvincedthatwithasystematicworkwewillbeabletoorganizehundredsoreventhousandsofpoorpeopleinHungary.

2. Budapest – The City is for All – Organizing the homelessTheCityisforAll(AVárosMindenkié)wasfoundedinAugust2009inBudapest,Hungaryby

homelessandformerlyhomelessactivistsandtheirallieswhofightforasocietybasedonequalityand justice. The group aims to create an opportunity for homeless people to standup for theirdignityandfight for the right tohousing.TheCity is forAllorganizescampaignsandactions todefendhomelesspeople’srights,toadvocatefortheirinterests,andtochangethesocialperceptionofhomelessness.

Eventhoughhomelesspeopleplayaleadingroleinallthegroup’sactivities,havingamixed(homeless/ex-homeless/housed) membership is something that makes the group not fit into thecommoncommunityorganizingperspective.Sinceeveryactivemembercountsasanactivist,therearenodesignatedorganizers,whichmake thedifferentpartsoforganizing roleswanderbetweenmembers.Butthereareotherfeaturesrelatedtocommunityorganizingthatmakethisgroupworthmentioning:

thegrassrootsdemocraticapproach; thethoroughstrategicplanning; theoutreachandrecruitmentmethods; themassiveempowermentofmarginalizedpersonsdirectlyaffectedbythecertainsocial

problem;

38

theconfrontationaldirectactionapproach; theaimtobuildasustainableorganizationandahousingmovement

allremindoneselfofcommunityorganizingmethods,eventhoughthegroupgottoknowtheapproachbypractice.

Theremightbesomedebateaboutwhetherthisgroupshouldbecountedasanorganizationbasedoncommunityorganizingprinciples,butonemustadmitthefactthatthemembersfoundoutthemselvesmostofthestandardsandruleswhichconnectstheirgroupstructureandoperationstocommunityorganizing.

39

CONCLusIONs

TheninecasestudiesthatareincludedinthisHandbookofferonlyaglimpseatthesuccesses,challengesandquestionsraisedbycitizens’involvementinlocaldecision-makingthroughcommunityorganizing. Nevertheless, some conclusions can be drawn in regards to the impact communityorganizinghasoncitizens,communities,andlocalgovernments’transparencyandaccountability,aswellas,thecommonchallengesandobstaclesfacedwhiletryingtoimplementcommunityorganizinginEurope,especiallyintheCentralandEasternEuropeanregion.

COmmuNITy ORGANIzING TRANsfORms PEOPLE, COmmuNITIEs ANd LOCAL GOvERNmENTs

1. Community Organizing Brings Concrete Improvements in People’s Lives The positive changes that community organizing brings, and that have been underlined

throughout this Handbook, are related first of all to the tangible results of people’s involvementinpublicdecisions that shape their cities/neighbourhoods/villages.Better infrastructureandgreenspaces,thepreservationofanoldcitycenter,moreenvironmentally-friendlygarbagecollectionarebutafewoftheachievementsofthecitizens’groupspresentedinthisHandbook.Mostoftheissuessolvedasaresultofcommunityorganizingprocesseswereonthetopofthelistofpeople’sprioritiesandneeds,andpeople’scontributiontofindingthebestsolutiontotheproblemwasakeyfactorindeterminingthesuccess.

2. Community Organizing Empowers Citizens to make use of Their Existent Rights but also to Claim New spaces of Participation

Community organizing proves to be an effective way to involve people that normally areoutsidethedecision-makingprocessandtogivethemvoiceinshapingtheirownlives–empoweringpeopleisthusacomplexandlongtermprocesswhichentailsseveralaspectsfrombuildingtheircapacities and skills, giving them knowledge about their rights as citizens, to building up theirmotivationandconfidencetostepoutinthepublicspaceanddemandchanges.Afterlivingmanyyearsintotalitarianregimeswiththeirvoicesbeingsuppressed,peopledevelopedasortofinertiaanddisaffection.Thefirstaimofcommunityorganizersinthistypeofcontextwastomakecitizensrecoverasenseoftheircapacityandrighttoact.Oncetheygraspedthisagainandtheywerewillingandabletovoicetheirproblems,visions,andconcernscitizensbegantousetheinstitutionalandlegalframeworkavailabletoparticipateinthepublicdecisionmaking.Asdemonstratedinthecasestudies,thefirststepspeoplewerewillingtomakewererelatedtopetitioning,requestsforpublicdebatesandpublichearingswithelectedofficials,allinstitutionalizedandlegalmechanisms.Mostofthetimesthough,thesestrategiesprovedtobeinefficientandpeoplerealizedtheyneedtomove

40

astepforward.Throughcommunityorganizing,informalgroupsofcitizenshavestartedusingmoreupfrontstrategies–protests,publicevents,accountabilitysessions,boycotts,mediapressure–andmostimportantlybuildingpower–mobilizingtheirneighboursandotheractorsinthecommunitytosupportthecause.

3. Organized Citizens, through Their Involvement in decision-making, Challenge the Way Public Authorities and Institutions function, Their Culture and Practices

FewofthecasestudiesincludedinthisHandbookhavepresentedexampleswherepublicauthorities reacted quickly and positively to people’s demands. The Polish examples fromKatowiceortheCallatisgroupfirstsuccessinBucharest,Romaniaseemtobeexceptionsratherthantherule.Inmostcases,citizensinvolvementisneitherwellreceivednorencouraged.Onthecontrary,inexamplesfromMoldova,Slovakia,andRomaniatherewereaggressivereactions,threats,manipulation fromelectedofficials,all todiscouragecitizens todemand thechangestheywantedandtheinformationtheywereentitledtoknow.People’spersistencethoughhelpschangethewaypublicinstitutionsfunctionandelectedofficialsperceivethemselves.Willinglyorpressured,theybecomemoreawareofthefacttheyareaccountabletothosewhoelectedthem,andtheystarttakingintoaccountpeoples’needsanddesires.Thebattleisnotaneasyoneaslotsofpublicdecision-makersarenotused to thiskindofpressureand their reactions rangefromignoringandpostponingpeople’srequeststoaggressivereactions,accusationsandthreatsaimingatdiscouragingpeople,dividingthegroups,orattemptingtoruintheircredibility.

COmmuNITy ORGANIzING - COmmON ChALLENGEs ANd OBsTACLEs

1. Building multi-Issue Groups Committed to Long Term InvolvementMostofthetime,peoplereactandmobilizethemselvesandothersincrisissituationstosolve

stringentproblemsthatcannotbepostponedanylonger.Oncetheproblemissolved,peopletendtowithdrawfromthepublicspaceandconcentrateontheirpersonalsphereofinterests.Thistypeofad-hocengagementisalotmorepresentthanthelong-termandproactiveparticipationinthecommunitylife.Inthiscontext,gatheringpeoplearoundlessstringentandurgentproblemsprovestobemuchharder.Itrequiresasenseofcommunityandaproactiveattitudetoimprovingthecity/neighbourhood/villagewhilethemajorityofpeopletendtobereactiveorexpectothers(theirneighbours,thepublicauthoritiesetc.)tonoticeandsolvewhateverissuethecommunityencounters.

Besides the reactive or expectative approach, a wide range of other attitudes, beliefs andfeelingsexplainwhypeopledon’tgetinvolvedincommunitymatters:apathy,disaffection,mistrustinpublicinstitutionsandauthoritiesand/orintheirneighbours,scepticismabouttheirowncapacitytodeterminechanges,feartobeexposed/tospeakupinthepublicarenaandsoon.Lotsofpeople

41

arerootedinthecommunistlegaciesandinthelengthy,difficultandmostofthetimesdisappointingtransitions tomarketeconomiesanddemocraciesofpost-communistsocietiessincethe1990s. Inadditionthereistheresultofapoorpoliticalandcivicculture,contributedtobyanunderdevelopededucational system. In these societies, the changes people produce through their involvement indecision-makingprocessesserveasamodelandhopefullyatriggerforotherstoparticipate.

2. sustainability – finding Resources for Community Organizing Givenalloftheabovementionedchallenges,thereisanacuteneedtoinvestinengagingmore

citizensinthedecisionsthataffecttheirlives,andinprocessesthatgivethemasenseofpowerintherelationshipwithlocalgovernments.Theinvestmentinbuildingpowerfulcitizens’groupsneedstobea long-termcommitment inorderto impactoursocieties.Asthecasestudieshaveshowed,community organizing is a complex and long-term approach that responds to several needs anddeficitsofourdemocraciesandthatrequiresthepermanentinvolvementoftrainedandprofessionalstaff.Thecommunityorganizer’sroleinbuildingcitizens’groupsandinhelpingthemstrategizeandrunsuccessfulcampaignsfortheircausesiscrucial.Withoutorganizersgatheringandencouragingpeopletoactinastrategicandlong-termway,therewillonlybesporadic,reactive,andad-hoccivicengagementthatislimitedoroftenendsinfailure.

Unfortunately, theorganizations thathave initiatedcommunityorganizingprocessesstruggletofindresourcestocarryon.WhileintheUSAlotsoffoundationsanddonorshaveprovidedseedfundingtosupportthebuildingofcommunityorganizations,Europeiscurrentlylackingthesupportand resources for long term citizen participation strategies like community organizing. Hopefully,foundations,corporations,privateindividuals,andotherdonorswilldecidetoinvestmoreinbuildingpowerfulcitizensgroupsabletoproducepositivechangesintheircommunitiesandholdaccountablepublicinstitutions.

42

COmmuNITy ORGANIzING REfERENCEs ANd REsOuRCEs

Books “Organizing forSocialChange:MidwestAcademyManual forActivists”,KimBobo, Jackie

Kendall,SteveMax,TheForumPress,2010;

“RulesforRadicals:APragmaticPrimerforRealisticRadicals”,SaulAlinsky,VintageBooksEdition,1971;

„CreativeCommunityOrganizing:aGuideforRabble-Rousers,ActivistsandQuietLoversofJustice”,SiKahn,Berrett-KoehlerPublishers,2010;

„StirItUp:LessonsinCommunityOrganizingandAdvocacy”,RinkuSen,Publisher:Jossey-Bass;1edition(March14,2003);

„Dynamics of Organizing: Building Power by Developing the Human Spirit”, Shel Trapp,satrapp@earthlink.net,2007;

„WeMakeChange:CommunityOrganizersTalkaboutWhatTheyDo–andWhy”,KristinLayngSzakos,JoeSzakos,VanderbiltUniversityPress,2007;

“LessonsfromtheField:Organizing inRuralCommunities”,JoeSzakosandKristinLayngSzakos,SocialPolicyMagazine,2008.

online ResouRCes comm-org.wisc.edu — Comm-Org: The Online Conference on Community Organizing –

containshundredsofarticlesandresourcesaboutcommunityorganizing;

neworganizing.com — TheNewOrganizingInstitute–containstrainingmaterials,projects,blogs,andnumerousotherresourcesconcerningcommunityorganizing;

comm-org.wisc.edu/?q=node/10 — Alistofonlinetrainingmanuals;

neworganizing.com/project/toolbox — AnOrganizer’sToolboxincludingnumeroustrainingvideosandoutlines;

toolsforradicaldemocracy.com — Fragments from Joan Minieri and Paul Getsos book— Tools for Radical Democracy: How to Organize for Power in Your Community (Jossey-Bass/KimKlein’sChardonPress).

43

euRopean language ResouRCes

Community organizing Training packet in polish

http://sllgo.pl/files/organizowanie_spolecznosciowe_kjr1.pdf — TrainingMaterials of DaveBeckwith.

Resources in german

ForumCommunityOrganizing,e.V.:www.fo-co.infoincludesliteraturelist;

Penta,Leo(Hrsg.)(2007).CommunityOrganizing.MenschenverändernihreStadt.Hamburg:EditionKörber-Stiftung;

Szynka,Peter(2005).TheoretischeundempirischeGrundlagendesCommunityOrganizingbeiSaulD.Alinsky(1909-1972)–EineRekonstruktion.Bremen:AkademiefürArbeitundPolitikderUniversitätBremen.

Resources in Romanian

The Resource Center for Public Participation website — www.ce-re.ro/programul-de-organizareorwww.ce-re.ro/ENG/back-to-the-grassroots

Abrochurepresenting3communityorganizingcasestudiesfromBucharestandtheoreticalpartsaboutcommunityorganizing—www.ce-re.ro/upload/catalog_OC_maimic.pdf

Resources in Hungarian

Websiteofthelearningcircleoncommunityorganizing:kozossegszervezes.wordpress.com

WebsiteofCityisforAll:avarosmindenkie.blog.hu

Resources in slovak

WebsiteofCenterforCommunityOrganizing—www.cko.sk

44

links To a sampling of CommuniTy oRganizaTions and neTwoRks

european Community organizing network (eCon)

ECON’s Facebook Page can be found at: http://www.facebook.com/#!/pages/European-Community-Organizing-Network-ECON/119744504743884;

ECON iscurrentlyconstructinganewwebsite.Whencompleted, thewebsitewill containtrainingmaterials,articlesaboutCOProjectsinEurope,andotherresources.

usa networks

npa-us.org —NationalPeoplesAction,Chicago,Illinois;

www.ctwo.org —TheCenterforThirdWorldOrganizing,Oakland,California;

www.thedartcenter.org/learn-about-dart —TheDirectActionTrainingandResourceCenter,Miami,Florida;

www.gamaliel.org —TheGamalielFoundation,Chicago,Illinois;

www.industrialareasfoundation.org/index.html —TheIndustrialAreasFoundation,Chicago,Illinois;

www.piconetwork.org —PICONationalNetwork,Oakland,California;

www.communitychange.org—CenterforCommunityChange,Washington,DC.

usa organizations

www.cvhaction.org —CommunityVoicesHeard,NewYork,NewYork;

www.virginia-organizing.org —VirginiaOrganizing,Charlottesville,Virginia;

www.mvorganizing.org—MahoningValleyOrganizingCollaborative,Youngstown,Ohio;

tubmanorganizing.org—HarrietTubmanCenter,Detroit,Michigan;

www.lsna.net/index.html —LoganSquareNeighborhoodAssociation,Chicago,Illinois;

www.chicagohomeless.org—ChicagoCoalitionfortheHomeless,Chicago,Illinois;

www.lakeviewaction.org —LakeviewActionCoalition,Chicago,Illinois;

www.unitednorth.org —UnitedNorth,Toledo,Ohio;

www.vocal-ny.org —VoicesOfCommunityAdvocates&Leaders(VOCAL)NewYork;

www.povertyinitiative.org —PovertyInitiative,NewYork.

45

for more information about this Handbook please contact:

grundtvig project national Coordinators

GrzegorzWojkowskiandDagmaraKubik(Poland)—grzegorz@bonafides.pl,dagmara@bonafides.pl

NicoletaChiriţă(Romania)—nicoleta@ce-re.ro

TinaLauxandChristianSchultz(Germany)— tina.laux@dw-bonn.de,christian-schultz.intakt@gmx.de

IzabellaMarton(Hungary)—marton.iza@hapn.hu

eCon Coordinating Team

KajoZboril(Slovakia)—kajo@econnet.eu

NicoletaChiriţă(Romania)—nicoleta@ce-re.ro

DagmaraKubik(Poland)—dagmara@bonafides.pl

PaulCromwell(Germany)—PaulAllanCromwell@hotmail.com

ChuckHirt(Slovakia)—chuck@cko.sk

46

The publication is financially supported by the European Commission through its lifelong learning programme - grundtvig partnerships.

The content of this Handbook does not reflect the official opinion of the european Commission. Responsibility for the information and views expressed in the publication lie entirely with the authors. © european Community organizing network, 2012.