|
Collaborations Between Public Agencies and
Residents in Low Income Communities Who is the Community? Who represents the community? These questions are appropriate starting points for public agencies, planners, philanthropists and other organizations
seeking to gain input from people who live in an area that is going to be impacted by their actions. They are particularly salient for those attempting to work collaboratively with community residents in community development
projects. Many programs look good on paper, but they lack community input and support, which results in a lack of participation from those they profess to serve. The answers to the questions are made more complex today by
dynamic demographic changes occurring in those communities most in need of assistance. The racial and ethnic makeup of the residents in low-income communities in California is less stable than it was a few decades ago.
Immigration, urban development, procedural changes in public housing rules, gentrification, and other factors are upsetting traditional community racial and ethnic power relationships that are reflective of past political, social
and economic conditions. The heterogeneity of low income communities requires more commitment on all levels, that is language assistance, educational and skills development, social, and economic assistance, all of which goes
beyond simply providing human services. The issues that challenge those seeking to impact low-income communities are complex:
- Residents in low income communities are no more monolithic in their opinions than residents in middle or high-income communities. Consensus on an approach to community development cannot be reached through
surveys or focus groups because opinions differ. A consensus cannot be reached absent a process that allows for discussion, conciliation, and mediation among a representative cross-section of people in the community.
- People in low income communities have multiple interests that relate to their situated lives and how they identify themselves. Simply offering standard programs to improve job skills and employability, nutritional
assistance and increased educational opportunities to all residents within disadvantaged communities does not guarantee success. The needs of residents within these communities are often more complex. Residents
frequently have multiple issues that include, but are not limited to: domestic violence and violence in general, criminal records, drug abuse, self-esteem, physical and mental health, child-care, and transportation.
- People in low income communities are no more likely to attend meetings to provide community input than people in more affluent communities. Rather, they are less likely to attend meetings due to one or all of
these issues: the lack of child-care, language differences, irregular work hours, reliable transportation, self-esteem/self-motivation, a lack of belief and trust in the system and sometimes just plain simple fear. It
can get more complicated if the community is fragmented and is distrustful of each other and / or it has a history of tension and conflict between rivaling groups.
- Typically, people with the greatest ability to affect change in the atmosphere of a low-income community are not at the table to provide input because recruiters fear them or perceive them as too far along the path of
criminality and drug abuse to be helpful. Yet they are the very people who can create a safe environment by changing their behaviors.
When challenges to creating a body to represent the community are overcome a new set of challenges arise. A representative group can comprise of individuals who have built up resentments, distrust of each other, of
government agencies, and other outside groups, and also have conflicting interests. Conveners need to be skilled in the use of intergroup conciliation and mediation to overcome differences among the participants and provide them
with a new forum to resolve their disagreements. The dynamics of the grouping may be further complicated by the introduction of outside experts on community development who are unable to communicate effectively and earn
the trust of the body. Unless the members of the group have reached the stage where they are clear on their desire to cooperate and feel that they have ownership of the project and not just pawns, bringing in someone who has
subject area expertise may be counterproductive. Too frequently one of two scenarios are employed by planners who fail to gain meaningful community input into community development:
- They move forward and rationalize that the community had the opportunity to participate and its their problem if they did not take advantage of it. The project thus becomes more important than the community that is
critical to its implementation; or
- Planners who are not familiar with intergroup dynamics and community organization leave it to those in the community with whom they find it easy to communicate to establish a congenial, but unrepresentative group, that will
provide them with their endorsement.
Public agencies, community planners and service providers, and philanthropists who seek to implement programs and activities that will impact a community and rely on the involvement of residents need to take as much care to
involve the residents as they do in designing the programs and activities. Just as experts are brought in to consult on the design of a program or activity, the development of a process to ensure community input and
involvement should receive the same consideration. Individuals and organizations with the knowledge and skills in community organizing, intergroup relationship building, and group dynamics are crucial to these programs.
They are a critical tool, as intermediaries between different organizations, government agencies and residents. The task of the intermediary is to ensure community participation in a way that will contribute to the ultimate
success of the endeavor tot he satisfaction of all parties involved. Finally, in any collaborative effort, all parties should be treated as professionals and in this case the residents are professionals. Who else knows
their community better and who else knows the issues within their neighborhood better than they do? Many have come to them with the promises and failed and many will come again, but the community is not likely to do better
unless the effort is truly a collaboration of equal partners. |
