Transforming communities

Explore

Community wealth building

Last edited 137 days ago by James Gardiner

Definition of wealth

Community wealth could be defined as the transition towards wealth equity. Wealth therefore needs its own definition and could be defined as the availability of resources or access to services. The nature of the distribution of wealth, moving from focus upon the individual and towards a community, collective wealth, rather than simply for individuals or specific demographics, is therefore integral to the creation of community wealth.

Even distribution

Distribution of wealth, created or enabled, in it’s broadest context looks to ensure that the community as a whole is considered, to ensure equity, non-discriminatory and socially just practices. Services that can be accessed by all, considering the removal of any barriers that might restrict access, supporting equitable opposed to equal access.

Equity

Equity is a key value for community wealth building, it considers meeting need, opposed to offering or treating everyone the same. Community wealth building therefore does not need to ensure that wealth or services are enacted equally but that as and when the need arises, those services are implemented to meet demand.

Socially just practices and processes

Wealth accumulation that disenfranchises or benefits particular demographics of populations is not indicative of community wealth building. An example of this would be through the development of profits; enabling shareholders to develop financial wealth, that is then no longer part of the community. Social justice is therefore contingent upon the consideration of social value as part of community wealth. If practices are employed that detracts from this policy, the policy itself is both undermined and contradicted.

Environmental ethics

The development of wealth that degrades the environment must be considered within the policy context of community wealth. If, through the develop of community wealth, there is an aspect of degradation of the environment, the mitigation at each phase of the development of that wealth must also consider the implications of individuals gains over community gains. An example of this would be the development of social housing. Yes, it will ultimately play a value for community wealth but, throughout the process, both the development, acquisition and life of the housing must also be critically analysed. If through the development phase or even the pre-development phase there have been profits stripped from the process, or the building material has a negative impact upon the environment, or in the life of the property it can be sold back into the open market for further development that impacts the environment, this will all work against the policy objective.

Examples of our current failures and potential transition to community wealth models:

Food

The availability of nutrition should form a key aspect of community wealth building. Not all people will need the same, or indeed want the same, but they should be afforded the opportunity to access quality and nutritious food as required. Currently food is inequitable, unjust and environmentally unethical in much of its production and supply chain. Community wealth building within the context of food

Energy

The creation and use of energy is especially difficult in relation to community wealth. This is simply due to the nature of our disconnect with one another. Whether it is heating our homes or driving our cars the individual nature of how society is typically set up around us prevents us from considering the impact our use has upon others because we often have no alternative. Solar cells on our roofs, heat pumps in our gardens can work to increase the available energy within a system, for example, through the feed in tariff where excess is sold back into the grid for wider distribution. However, as we know and understand from Jevrons paradox, efficiency gains are lost through increased usage.

One way for us to reconsider our consumption of energy is through localised grids, with finite energy output potentials. It is here that communities, through education, understand that energy use impacts, not just the user, but the immediate community and therefore the environement. Coming together and creating spaces to consume energy as a community, has immediate benefits. A simple example of this is electric lighting; when individuals are in separate rooms or homes we have the same lighting requirements in every space we occupy, or if we are together, one light can be used by the multiple occupants. It seems a strange statement but it is this collective mindset, the hive, that enables a mass reduction in consumption.

Laying this at the door of individuals for them to make the change, to turn lights off as you leave rooms, is all very well but it is the wider system change, organisational practices and culture that is required for real impact. If greater access to shared spaces was enabled, barriers to that access removed, we might start to realise what hive thinking is capable of.

Buildings

Broadening this problem, applying it across our built environment, we might consider that it is the buildings themselves that have been used to create this division. As we emerge from one of consequences of our anthropocentric focus, deforestation and the marginalisation of communities, we begin to imagine what our society might look like if we did not all have to travel from one box to another to complete our ‘work’. Placing focus upon the purposeful use of spaces and buildings, questions emerge as to the need to have separate office and living spaces.

There is no doubt that the resounding cry for community has been the least heard by the systems that govern us and yet it is the loudest. Using energy to build a home and then to build another space for the inhabitant to ‘work’ at / in, seems an increasingly unnecessary task. The companies crying out for people to return to the work space and the economy asking for the commuters to return, so they can ‘re-ignite’ the economy, is simply a statement of all that is broken.

If we play that statement out slightly and consider the mechanics behind it, the economics that governs it ,we might start to realise the gravity of the problem we have created. Lets begin with the office space. Usually leased out over a number of years, the companies taking on the lease, are faced with some challenges. The finance director has undoubtedly worked out the cost per head, per use, per time and on that basis understood the parameters of the size and type of building required in the first instance for the lease. As soon as numbers of employees using this space begins to fall, their position is in question. Why and how this space is required now becomes an issue to solve. Bringing employees back does indeed reiterate the need for the space, justifying the company spend, therefore it would be encouraged. But, what the company will not necessarily consider, is the wider implications that this now has.

Transport:

Car use and the rise of the electric vehicle has simply increased our consumption of resources as we all rush to purchase new vehicles, believing that this is the solution. On an individual case by base basis they do of course mean that we are not using petrochemicals to power our movements and we are reducing our emissions. However this does not necessarily translate to support the transition away from our over consumption of resources.

Until structures are in place to rapidly reduce the need for individual’s to own vehicles it is unsurprising to see the simple replacement of the old by the new, placing more pressure on our natural environment as we simply look to replace combustion engines with lithium batteries.

Nature & Biodiversity:

Access to, along with the support of our natural environment is critical when we consider community wealth. Wellbeing is inextricably linked to our environment and therefore community wealth is contingent upon the broad access to our natural environment.

Placing any monetary value upon nature is one of the most devaluing assumptions that we have been driven to. A lack of understanding here is not just bizarre but once again takes an anthropocentric stance above all else. The value to the ecosystem is priceless, as it is imbricated in all life. Taking it away from that ecosystem, without letting it be digested back into the soil will have consequences that are never to be seen, yet alone monetised. The assumption that if we monitise nature we can somehow measure the consequence of its demise in a way that we might understand really does assume that human can only process one simple value metric.

Here is where overshoot comes into play. At what point in the year do human use up the nature’s regenerated resources? We now are using up these supplies by July each year, meaning that August through to December, we take more than can be produced by our world.

Homes:

Our housing crisis is driven largely by the current economic system. It is a scarcity model that has been operated for the past 500 years of the reign of capitalism that has not only driven the divide between the global north and south but has also left every community with a widening inequality gap. It is this divide that can be most easily identified through the housing market in the UK.

In 2019 the average house price in England was 7.8 times workplace-based annual earnings (Housing affordability in England and Wales - Office for National Statistics, 2020). Recent trends identified in the British Government's 2018-19 English Housing Survey support the view that Britain's housing market is in crisis. There has been a decline in both home ownership, from a 2003 high, specifically in the 25 - 34 age bracket, and available social housing.

This report also shows rising trends in the number of single-occupancy households, overcrowding across the rental sector and growing under-occupancy in owned households, attributed to older house owners not downsizing (Rottier, 2020). These worrying trends illustrate the problem of access to housing that meets different needs. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation highlights the growth of the private rental sector, predicted to rise to 40% by 2025 (Hafford-Letchfield et al., 2019), as a critical reason for a shortage of affordable rented housing for vulnerable and low-income households. These trends demonstrate a growing issue of access to housing stock designed to meet the current and future needs of the population. Two identified growth trends, an ageing population and the rise in single occupancy, are of specific interest when considering whether co-housing is a scalable solution. Co-housing can help provide affordable and sustainable housing that benefits these two types of households.

Colonial relics embedded within social structures of public sector:

With the multiple crisis being faced there still appears to be little light shone upon the root causes, embedded deep within our culture. When we ask individuals to identify causes or solutions, they are often singular, tangible and solvable, coming from, of course, subjective vantage points.

Individual cultural capital, one’s afforded opportunities and experience, shapes one’s worldly views. This subjectivity is therefore just one perspective and clearly should not the foundation for forming equitable or just services.

Yet we find ourselves in a time where exactly this has happened. Research and analysis all but abandoned and a belligerent view of what an individual thinks is right, has taken the front stage in shaping much of our public services, simply because they are embroiled within a political economy that is both tribal and toxic.

The position of scarcity, opposed to abundance, pushes all public services to compete for the money that is available and, as is often the case, services are cut or, in the attempt to make savings, services are outsourced to private entities. Ultimately this supports the position that the markets, thereby those in the positions of power and wealth, are the ones that need to be supported.

Until our political systems radically shifts away from supporting capital and towards the regenerative economy, valuing people and planet, every public sector service is fighting a battle; trying to support a wide section of the population against a mechanism that is working to support capitalists in the form of CEO’s and investors.

This system of operation, capitalism, is echoed within our public sector in the form of hierarchy. The chiefs will not loose their positions, nor will they reduce their salaries, rather, they will cut services, cut labour and overheads of the services, and look to continue to exploit natural resources that enable a reduction in costs.

Those in public sector leadership are not dissimilar to the CEO’s of the private companies making profit. Indeed it could be argued that these people have been selected for theor roles to support the drive of the capitalist machine.

It is in the time of hardship that we see the true colours of these leaders. Do they bend with the machine or do they fight it, looking to develop services, reach out into their communities and stand as a bastion for the community not as a destroyer of it.

A new paradigm for services to the public.

Before we move to what exactly this new paradigm looks like, it is important to lay out why our existing model is unable to change. As mentioned in the introduction, the system we have for public sector is one which is based upon hierarchy and, through the governance of that system, ultimately by the Government, that hierarchy is necessitated. A clear example here would be the set up of new schools. The structure of the organisation can not be fundamentally changed, there is no option for a flat structure member owned cooperative and therefore the position of power is perpetuated, colonialism lives on within these structures, with those in power selecting individuals, who perpetuate their views and have simular cultural capital, to support their position of authority and become their successors.

How might a new paradigm be created?

The simplest way for this to evolve would be to abandoned a capitalist system and adopt community, flat structure governance. Unfortunately, the capitalist machine has no stop or reverse and, therefore the only option available is to create a new model of operation, that we can slowly transition into, challenge the status quo, working for people and the environment rather than those in positions of power.

This new paradigm comes from a place of equity, justice, diversity and inclusion. It is one that is open and transparent, that makes decisions based upon consent, not majority consensus. One that adapts to meet ever changing needs and one that is ultimately fit for a future, considering regenerative principles above all else.

This system is one that does not consider employment in the same light as it is viewed now. It considers employment as meaningful time, a choice for individuals to make, that enables them to become entwined within the operations of community not forced to work every hour of the day due to necessity.

This paradigm considers the collective good over the individual’s aspirations. It takes account of individual agency without compromising the collective narrative. It moves away from individualism, providing a positively discriminated universal basic income, and deploys surplus to best develop the needs of the community.

This paradigm is not one that supports any individual over another, it considers socially just actions to be for the good of all, not of any particular group, and, without question, it places the environment to which we all live at the top of the agenda.

The entangled web:

It is clear that, and when we start to consider these solutions, these areas are interconnected and interdependent. Working to address specific issues within this complicated model are conceived from anthropocentric principles, initiated by the likes of Decartes, placing human above all others life forms and processes. This anthropocentric perspective does not consider the complexities of the ecosystems that we are part of. Disbandment of this position is critical if we are to have any hope for future generations. Along with this, and this is one of the most difficult positions for us to take, is the disbandment of capitalism and the principles to which is it both conceive and practiced.

Transformation for community wealth:

Schools enable community wealth, they afford all children access to statutory education, but the school facilities, particularly in primary schools, are now being used to generate individual wealth or exclusive wealth. This is in two forms, one is profit; the providers are, through their incorporation, able to turn surplus into profit, as a dividend for their shareholders. Secondly, the wealth created is focused upon exclusive groups, those who attend the activities and, as demonstrated earlier, the price point is often a barrier for attendance, this simply increases the cultural capital of those who are afforded the opportunity to attend.

Services offered could be considered in much the same way as school trips; afforded to everyone, knowing that some might not be able to pay the full cost and that shortfall is then paid for by the school. In this vein and to speak to an equitable process, all OOSH services therefore need to enable parents the option to access childcare tax allowance, to enable up to 80% of the cost to be reclaimed. The offer of service then becomes accessible, even if it is not taken up, it could be accessed.

If some operations are registered and some are not, as is the situation in many schools, further divides are driven as parents who need to access the ‘childcare’ service, have little option but to use it. It is often the specific enriching activities that do not register with Ofsted and therefore, can not be used as ‘childcare’.

Equity through transformation:

In order to operate as a service for pupils, parents, and the community for the whole year, the entirety of operations from these public facilities needs to consider the community wealth potential, opposed to the individual opportunity. The objective is therefore to roll out a programme that will enable consistency with relation to equitable and socially just access to services during all OOSH operations through research based learning throughout our education institutions. Schools, our bastions of communities, are the key to tackling some of the wider social inequalities and injustices we see within communities but only if we realise the full potential for the facility to provide services that enable resilience. Schools have just a 7% influence over the outcome of academic achievements (Evans and Penny 2007) but they are critical for developing a sense of holistic wellbeing. Knowledge dissemination and transmission is a focal point for transformation but it is through the process of social acculturation, the practices and processes we apply to this transmission, that is key.

What we do, not what we say is forming the way that young people think about the world. Outsourcing food, tech, PE and out-of-school-hours services have become prevalent as procurement becomes an increasing focus within the public sector, and yet, the institutions outsourcing are also the ones charged with enabling and affording the development of a critical consciousness. Critical theory, challenging oppressive power structures; forms of discriminatory practice, social injustice and inequalities, becomes especially poignant here. Outsourcing services to profit companies ultimately, as we have previously mentioned, focuses resources towards individuals opposed to community wealth. This drives further inequalities as the distribution of wealth is moved from the service to the shareholder. Companies working in our schools are generating profit (money syphond out of the company to shareholders) and it has not yet been realised that the procurement of services or the hiring out of facilities is enabling this inequality. The race to the bottom for procuring services often neglects the consideration of value, other than monetary, of the services being procured. If the lowest price secures the service has anyone ever considered that the quality might be diminished? The shareholders will not want to lose their slice of the pie and therefore the service itself becomes squeezed, less staff, reduced standards, less management, leaner process, less due diligence etc etc.

This is exactly what happens as local authority services are squeezed, budgets constantly eroded and budget managers consistently working to demonstrate that they need all their budget, spending frivolously at the end of the financial year, in fear that it will be reduced the following year. This financial management style is not only wasteful but never affords the opportunity for the school to operate as the independent financial institution they are supposed to be. One of the perceived ways out of this mess, and the cynic asks if this has been designed, is through academisation.

The vision of social enterprise to operate community services from community buildings

All schools facilities need to be afforded the opportunity to enable:

Breakfast, after-school, evening, weekend and school holiday activities; services that are considerate of parents working requirements while enriching for those who attend. Enabling children space to play and enrich their lives while supporting a community through programmes that tackle wider inequalities.

Youth club spaces

Community canteen

Operating these services across multiple school sites can only become viable if they are considered as one service, education. If this is enacted on a school by school basis, we will inevitably see the schools with the most affluent demographic being afforded greater opportunity for income generation and service development. A postcode lottery is neither equitable nor socially just and, in this time of climate crisis, every attempt should be made to ensure that all children across the entire area are afforded the same opportunities as they are during statutory schooling, access.

An area wide programme would enable children, no matter which school they attend, to participate in enrichment activities that support agency and self-efficacy through developmentally appropriate activities that nurture a critical consciousness.

How do we transform?

Transformational operations; consent based decision making within a CIC

CIC’s have the ability, through special resolution, to move all company decision-making from company director level to committee level, or circles. Committees operate as autonomous decision making entities. There is no hierarchy but roles appointed and recognised as and when appropriate and required. A legal and finance committee can be delegated the responsibility for ensuring the CIC meets its statutory requirements.

These decision making circles will each be delegated particular responsibilities. One such responsibility will be the operations of a school OOSH services. This will be decided through the general circle, that an operational circle is formed, as a committee, to decide how to operate OOSH services at a particular site.

When a school becomes a member of the CIC they will be able to appoint themselves or a delegate to the general circle, within their operational area, the operational circle for their school and they will also be able to appoint a delegate to the finance and legal circle. For example, the operational circle might have a senior leader appointed as a representative of the school, the business manager might be appointed to the finance circle and the head teacher or governor might be appointed to the general circle.

Decisions within each of these circles will be through a sociocratic consent process. This ensures that all voices within the circle are heard and that consent is gained by the circle before decisions are made.

Within each circle there are a minimum of four roles, each appointed by the circle for a specified period of time, of which they also choose; the leader has oversight of the future of work that might need to occur; the facilitator has oversight of the present; the secretary is the keeper of the past decisions and process that the circle has undertaken; the delegate carries and represents the voice of the circle.

This process affords agency for each operational team, ensuring that day to day operational decisions can be taken without the involvement of the rest of the CIC.

Analyse, deconstruct, transform

Prior to this transformation, a process of analysis needs to be conducted.

Operational circles need to be set in place and various information needs to be gathered about the current operations during OOSH on a site by site basis.

One of the major concerns to address is one of capacity and it is intended that the CIC will be able to ensure that additional capacity will be afforded to each school we partner with.

The initial information required to be collated is as follows:

What is the full extent of the offer of services enabled at each school currently, at what is the potential capacity;

What do each of the providers generate and supply?

How many staff would be considered within a TUPE process or direct employment to the social enterprise? Are there any economic, technical or organisational considerations that will impact TUPE?

What is the current commitment to supply staff cover, external services and contracts?

It would be intended that these can all come in-house, under the remit of the social enterprise work. The social enterprise will ensure that the necessary resources are allocated to cater for demand across the network of schools.

The members of the SEWN (sustainable environmental and wellbeing network) advocate this transformation process for school facilities, it aligns equitable and socially just services with the development of community wealth, while underpinned by the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals.

The need for community focus:

Housing, food, energy, transport, nature & biodiversity have become separate from our process of schooling and yet education is critical if we are to challenge our current destructive and disjointed practices that have led to our climate crisis. Education, not just the words we say and the knowledge we impart but, how we act and what we do, will shape the way in which our communities function.

The system of Education could address all of the above, but only if schools, and the facilities we use to enable our system, realise themselves as part of the solution. Housing, energy, transport, nature & biodiversity are all one of the same entangled process, life. In order for the process to be understood, supported and nurtured it is essential to deconstruct the complexities, analyse, simplify and then transform to align with this entanglement.

How a school can support a community, in the midst of multiple crises and the verge of total civilisation collapse; housing; affordability and capacity, health; non-communicable disease, energy; unaffordable and unsustainable; nature & biodiversity; mass extinction of species and habitats, can only be enabled through this transformation. We will not be able to address the issues we face by using the same mechanisms that drove us to this brink. It is new thinking, new theoretical frameworks and new structures that are the only possible light at the end of this bleak tunnel.

If Academisation is to be forced then we must take consideration of the potential opportunities that must be enabled and afforded for community wealth building, not for individuals or individual organisations to gain.

Want to print your doc?
This is not the way.

Try clicking the ⋯ next to your doc name or using a keyboard shortcut (

CtrlP

) instead.