This document discusses rural community organizing in England. It notes that faith-based organizations have historically supported community organizing efforts in several English cities. It also finds that about 13% of community organizing groups in England focus on or include rural areas in their activities and membership. The document analyzes findings from interviews with over 20 stakeholders involved in or supporting community organizing and community development. It discusses links between urban and rural community organizing efforts and ways the two fields of community organizing and community development can learn from and reinforce one another, especially in pursuing community-led action.

1. Rural Community Organising in England
James Derounian

2. About James
 33 years in (rural) community development
 NCVO – RCC – RDP - CA
 Central involvement in Winchcombe NP & Examiner
 CLP: Skeffington - RWP2000 - Localism Act 2011
 Continuing community-based trajectory

3. James

4. Where are we?

5. From organizing to Organising
Importance of faith-based support for CO
CofE “financial support since 1990 for the development of
Community Organising in several English cities” Furbey (et al, 1997: 141)
Ashington CDT; Gloucestershire RCC; Keystone Development
Trust (E. England); Cambridgeshire Community Foundation; Kirkgate
Arts – Cumbria social enterprise & Penwith CDT, Cornwall

6. 54
7 (13%) considered rural in base, coverage or activities

7. The approach
 Literature Review – practice, academic, blogs etc.
 Feedback: 20+ key stakeholders incl. COs & agencies supporting/hosting
 Contacted by ‘snowballing’

8. Findings & discussion
 Rural England = 13,000 Christian churches (Farnell et al, 2010); little
evidence of proselytising, exclusion or discrimination
 Links and cross-fertilisation urban-rural CO
 US – UK CO
 Neighbourhoods = urban = where community organisers operate
 CD Experience/ expertise (colonial origins) of promoting self help
 CO: C19th US reformers & e.g. Southern Tenant Farmworker Union

9. Reinforcement: what CO & CD can learn from each other
“Across the UK there are…about 20,000 CD workers,
including many who use a CD approach as part of
another job”
(CLG, 2006: 4)
Parish & Town Councils: 1894, rural-urban crossover
Paulo Freire: education for community action "can never
be neutral: its political function is to liberate or
domesticate”
(Ledwith, 2005: 53)

10. Findings & discussion II
 CD + CO represent different approaches to gain similar results.
Coexisting on a ‘messy’, diverse and overlapping spectrum
 Blight of short-termism & other issues/ possibilities
 CO + CD = mutual reinforcement in pursuit of community action
 Continuing community-based arc, though detail may change: Big Soc
 Localism (2011 Act) and localism

11. Engaging
a

12. Questions questions…
What can CD learn from CO in rural contexts and vice versa?
What are the key challenges for organising in & with rural
communities?
What are the ways forward for rural CD and Organising?