The Problem: I was working with a highly successful seniors' organization that seemed to be about to use the power it had built up within the community to block a much-needed centre for local teenagers.

The Setting Kensington is a working class suburb within the city of North Melbourne, Australia. The population is about 6,000 people, of which 2,500 live in a large public housing estate. Within Kensington there were a substantial number of retired people, many of whom had lived in the area for quite some time, some for their entire working lives. About eighteen months prior to the beginning of this story, I began working with a group of seniors who called themselves "The Kensington Community Welfare Group" (KCWG). They had little to do specifically with formal welfare, but had chosen the name to signify their interest in the welfare of their members. They conceived of themselves not simply as a social club, but as activists fighting for seniors in Kensington. From its beginning the group had been vibrant and active. It had a formal membership of 50, about 3/4 of whom were women. Meetings were very well attended, and each meeting seemed to bring in at least one new member.

The Actors

Mary H.: head of KCWG. Like most of the members, she was a long-term resident and a home owner.

Ken D.: the youth outreach worker employed by local city council. He had little training, but plenty of commitment and enthusiasm. He was born and raised in the area.

Lesley: the narrator. I was employed by the local community health centre. This was a statefunded and locally controlled facility (local community people formed the committee of management) that offered a variety of services, all generally health-related. My job was allocated 50% casework and 50% community development.

The Events

The KCWG had achieved numerous successes over the 18 months of its existence. It had developed a sophisticated analysis of local city politics and knew how to acquire needed resources for seniors in the area. Among its many successes, perhaps the most significant was managing to place at least one of its members on the boards of directors of nearly every important community organization in the area. There was one issue, however, that the group viewed as very problematic for them. There was a large group of teenagers in the area, many of whom lived in the local housing project. These kids were fairly noticeable, in that there was a lot of graffiti on various walls and they tended to loiter on the street. The City Council had tried to do something about it by hiring Ken as a youth worker. However, they gave him little support and a meagre budget. Ken had worked hard to get to know the kids, and had earned their trust. He managed to get a lease on a small shop for use as a youth drop-in centre (over which he lived). This was one of those ideas that seemed better in the conception stage than in the execution. The place became a major attraction for youth all right, but there was little for them to do and as a result they spilled out into the street, hanging around on street corners, intimidating passers-by and putting graffiti all over the area. The seniors' group disapproved of the teenagers' behaviour, and were increasingly vocal in their disapproval. What brought things to a head was a proposal from the North Melbourne City Council to build a community centre for youth programs. Ken naturally supported this project. The KCWG, on the other hand, felt that the centre was a terrible idea, that the kids had already been given too much. There was talk that the KCWG might decide to oppose the project. I tried to help the seniors to understand the needs of the kids but they just wrote my comments off as coming from a "soft touch" social worker.

Strategy

I decided that the seniors needed to hear from someone else other than me, and that Ken was the best person to talk to them to explain the rationale for the teen centre. He really knew the kids and their needs, but at the same time, having been born and bred in the community, he was sensitive to the feelings of the people of the KCWG. Ken was quite pleased to come, since he and I had already shared our concerns about the group mounting a lobby against the youth centre project.

Action and Outcome

The meeting was very well attended, and everything went quite well at first. Ken even brought a short film that illustrated the needs of the teens. After the film he talked for a few minutes about the kids, how the centre would give them a place to get off the street and how programs could be developed to channel their energies. He then asked if there were any questions. At this point I could see that things were not going to go as planned. The first person with a question was quite abrasive and confrontational, and when Ken attempted to answer in a non-defensive manner, a couple people yelled more questions before he had time to finish. The person chairing the meeting did little to try and bring order, and although I really admired Ken's manner I could see that the people in the crowd had not come to listen, but to show their anger. Pretty soon I could not even hear Ken's voice. Poor Ken was literally being yelled down. It became obvious that nothing was going to be achieved, so I did what I could to bring things to order and I ended the meeting. Strangely enough, the KCWG did not follow through on its idea of opposing construction of the youth centre. They never actually made any formal decision concerning the youth centre. The issue essentially just died and no one in the group would discuss it with me. While grumbling about the teenagers went on, there was no more talk of the centre at all. Perhaps they were ashamed of their behaviour toward Ken. Maybe they had vented their anger enough, or maybe some of the things Ken said had registered with them after the meeting. In any event, the centre was eventually built, and my work with KCWG continued as if there had never been an issue.

Question I need help with: Which of Rothman's (2016) modes of community organization are evident in the case study? Justify your answer using at least three of the "practice approaches" he uses to describe the different modes. Explain in depth if possible please