The Dignity Christmas Store

Clark Blakeman– Second Stories

Five kids ranging from 8 to 3 years old came rolling out of the metal door on a small building across the parking lot from the neighborhood church, a mother chasing behind.  Rapidly fired words mixed with giggles, package shaking, and directionless walking made the mom’s work of corralling the kids difficult.  But she was in a great mood and full of smiles. She gathered up all the gifts she had just bought and wrapped with new friends from the church while her kids played games and made gifts for mom out of construction paper and glue. In her limited English she expressed her thanks and hugs were given to everyone as the family made their way to the bus stop. She seemed to especially cherish a framed family portrait that she received as a gift from a photographer from the church who had set up inside the Dignity Christmas Store.

During the month of December a low-income apartment complex and a local church worked together, facilitated by Second Stories, to create the Dignity Christmas Store. This effort is an expression of a growing understanding of Asset Based Community Development and the relationship developing between the congregation and the residents of the apartments.

The idea had three objectives. One was to support apartment residents who could not afford to purchase Christmas gifts and preserve their dignity in the process. To do this they developed a Christmas tree lot fundraiser that would enable gifts to be purchased and offered at a 90 percent discount from retail. Attending to the lot was shared by many. In this way the low-income residents would experience the dignity of purchasing gifts themselves rather than being demoralized by an “adopt a poor family for the holidays” approach.

Another goal was to further develop relationships between church members and apartment residents.  They achieved this by sequencing each family’s shopping opportunity and pacing it so there was plenty of time for just hanging out. They wrapped gifts together, and sat for conversation over hot chocolate, coffee and snacks. Kids played foosball, made gifts or colored. Families were each offered the opportunity to get a family portrait, which was developed and framed while the parents shopped.

The third aim, and perhaps most important, was to listen for the gifts, abilities and passions of each other so as to discern what additional ways these two groups can work together for the common good of their neighborhood. Informal questions were developed and asked, designed to reveal motivations and assets to be given. Ideas were generated and new possibilities for working together have begun to emerge.  Ideas were gleaned, like working to have sidewalks installed along the apartment complex that butts up against the neighborhoods’ busiest street, offering credit for use at the Dignity Store for anyone who volunteers at the tree lot, increasing the quality of snacks at the Dignity Store by utilizing the multi-ethnic foods represented at the apartments, and doing a jointly hosted international dinner at the local park.

This coalition of “workers for the common good” is young and still somewhat tentative. But already the quality of life for both church members and apartment residents is at a higher level due to the environment of dignity and inclusion being fostered.  This is about healthy relationships on the small and larger neighborhood scale.  And as the mother of 5 can attest, that’s exactly what’s being experienced in SE Portland.

Asset Based Community Development: Working “With” the Community

CFA Executive Director, Jay Van Groningen, responds to a comment from a recent post, and discusses the idea of “In, To, or With:”

“How does one listen to neighbors in a way that: 1. Discovers what neighbors care about enough to act on it? 2. Discovers what gifts they bring to the things they want to work on? 3. Helps neighbors discover their neighbors who care about the things they care about – so they can work on them together?

Personally,  I resist those programs and ministries that churches want to start, control and implement to/for their neighbors. I think it is much healthier when church comes along and supports the good things neighbors care about doing. Then the church and community can work together on how to sustain the good work. If ministry is done really well, the church does not need to own or control the ministry, it gets to support it in the ways that bless ministry and the congregation. If ministry is done really well, the community eagerly accepts and embraces the church members participation on a level, respectful, playing field (with respect to power in and control). They enjoy getting good things done together.”

Here are some further thoughts…

The Church “With” the Community:

  • desires to influence the community.
  • desires community stakeholders to influence it.
  • spends significant resources (time, talent, goods) in the community.
  • utilizes planning and assessment processes that are influenced by both church members and community stakeholders, and makes decisions based on the impact desired by church members and neighbors.
  • serves and develops the community for reasons and with with methods that bring transformational impact to the community and church alike.
  • looks for and unleashes the gifts, skills, and resources already present in the community.
  • is a convener of the community, a servant to the community, adding value to residents and the community as a whole; a net contributor to the community even though it does not pay taxes.

(Communities First, p. 10)  Go to the Store for more information on this resource.

In the News: Asset Based Community Development

The Muskegon Chronicle highlighted CFA member Kimi Zimmerman (Community enCompass) in a February 8th on-line article.  Writer Dave Alexander describes the neighborhood transformation taking place in the McLaughlin neighborhood of Muskegon, MI, and focuses on the principles of Asset Based Community Development as the catalyst for change.  He quotes member Kimi Zimmerman, “This neighborhood has grasped the concepts and put them to work here in Muskegon.”  She continues, “We are seeing a beautiful transformation taking place.” Click here to read the full article.

Neighborhood Transformation: From Handouts to Development

Wendy McCaig, Embrace Richmond

Most economically challenged communities experience scarcity of resources such as food, clothing, and especially things that cannot be purchased with food stamps like cleaning supplies, diapers and paper products.  Over the past few years we have been experimenting with ways of providing for these basic needs of our community without fostering dependency.

In Asset Based Community Development the first question we ask is, “What does the community have to work with?”  In our community, the answer to this question is time.  Less than 30% of the residents are employed.  This reality led us to experiment with various forms of time-banks over the years. In a “time-bank” system, participants earn “service credits” when they serve in the community.  Those credits are then redeemed for goods and services.  We are just getting our time bank off the ground in Hillside Court, but we used this approach extensively for our furniture bank program.  The advantages to this approach, which is very similar to a co-op model, are very exciting.

We have found in our use of time banks over the years, that it is a good way of insuring fair distribution of goods as well as developing relationships.  Given that depression brought on by isolation is one of the key issues facing our community, relationships are often in shorter supply than basic goods and services.  By requiring an investment on the part of the recipient, this approach increases the recipient’s sense of ownership, and enhances the relationships between the residents as they serve together in the community.  Time Banking utilizes what people have, while allowing them to access what they need.

Giving out food, clothing, and other goods is not a bad thing, but it should be seen as an emergency response and not as a long-term solution.  Research shows that participating in feeding lines, food pantries, and other forms of charity that require nothing of the recipient can actually devalue a person’s sense of dignity, create dependency, and fuel a spirit of entitlement if it becomes a way of life.  What I love about a co-op/time bank approach is that the need gets met, and the person is actually investing in the ongoing development of the community.  This act of giving actually increases self-esteem and fosters a sense of community pride.

I know this type of approach will be messy.  It is far easier to give away stuff, but I have seen how the hard work involved in setting up an Asset Based Community Development system pays off in the long-run as the residents take ownership of their future and that of their neighborhood.

The Journey at AACRC

Kimi ZimmermanCommunity enCompass

For me, this is a story of hope…hope that the church can become what/who God intended it to be from the start. A place of learning, a place of growing, a place of acceptance, respect and love, and most importantly a place where anyone can belong because it is a community of people who care about each other. I am excited that this church that has been in existence for over a hundred is willing to say, “we need to change if we want to make a difference.” It gives me hope to work with a church that is willing to ask questions rather than give answers.

Allen Avenue CRC was ready for a change and wanted to become involved in our community in a different way than we had been in the past. However, we were unsure what that change was going to look like before being introduced to Asset Based Community Development earlier this year. After a few months, we have started to see a shift in the way that we think about and relate to our neighbors and the neighborhood. In the past, the statistics of this area have resulted in a skewed perception of the Angell neighborhood. Our opinions had been clouded by the things we were reading and hearing about concerning the crime rates, drug trafficking, violence, high rates of unemployment, and so forth.We had lost touch of the good things that were going on in our neighborhood and the strengths and assets already existing within it. Even more, we stopped knowing who are neighbors really were.

Read more of this post

Changing the Pond

Wendy McCaigEmbrace Richmond

One of our partners, Wendy McCraig, has a great blog post on going beyond “teaching people how to fish” to “changing the conditions of the pond.” Not sure what that means? Check out her post:

http://wendymccaig.com/2011/07/13/changing-the-pond/

Signs of Community Transformation

This week I spent two full days with 8 seminary students (and one faculty member). We did some site learning and I introduced them to some basic elements of Asset Based Community Development. We visited four communities where churches are engaging with their communities in the transformation of their neighborhoods.

In one exercise, I asked them to list all of the activities and ministries that they and their congregations were engaged in related to mercy and justice. With only a few exceptions all of their reported activities were focused on individual betterment and individual development. None of them had prior experience or mental maps that suggested a pathway to community transformation. This is true of most north American Christian audiences.

Moving Christians and congregations in their thinking from individual betterment (which is good) to community transformation (which is more impactful) is very challenging. I have been thinking through this week, How can one tell if a church is engaging in Community Transformation? What are some indicators of progress?

Many churches have language, liturgy, leadership, programs and practices for Ministry of the Word and sacraments. What would the language, liturgy, leadership, programs and practices be for a church that was equally focused on community transformation?

Here are some initial thoughts: What do you think?

A. Congregational Readiness:

  1. Does the congregation have a target neighborhood? Yes or No. What is the specific neighborhood that the congregation has committed to? How can a church leave a redemptive (and sustainable) imprint in a community, if it does not have a declared neighborhood as its focus for transformation?
  2. Does the congregation have a community transformation leader (or team)? Yes or No? Who is teaching and guiding the congregation in its community transformation engagements? The work will not be sustainable without a leader or team who leads/guides the transformation story over time.

B. Community Transformation Process

1. Is there a systematic (and ongoing) listening process with the community that results in:

  • Discovering and cataloging neighbors (and members) gifts; Is the gift information transparent, accessible and shared with the community for the common good?
  • Discovering what residents care about, enough to work on it with support from the congregation.

2. Is there an agenda for change that is shared with the community that arises from the listening process? Is the agenda co-owned by church and community?

3. Are there community action groups (with congregants and neighbors) forming around the agenda items and working on the things they care about?

4. Is there a shared venue(s) for reporting back to congregation and neighbors the progress being made on their agenda?

5. Is there evidence of cooperation with other congregations, associations and institutions in the community in accomplishing the agenda?

6. Is there evidence of Church(es) raising the voice of the poor to change the systems that perpetuate poverty?

C. Sign Posts of Progress:

  • There is movement from “ministry to/for” those people to “ministry with” our neighbors
  • There is movement from “inward” to “outward” focus in ministry
  • There is movement from “simple responsiveness” to “more complex” (w)holistic engagements that address root causes.
  • There is movement from “mono cultural” to “multi-cultural” engagement
  • There is movement from economic homogeneity to economic heterogeneity
  • There is movement from “commuter-based” ministry to “geographic-based” ministry.
  • There is movement from “church-centric” to Kingdom-centric language and frameworks.
  • There is movement from focusing on “problems” to “future/vision” oriented focus
  • There is movement from understanding stewardship of “our gifts” to stewarding of the “community gifts”.
  • There is a “relocation” strategy for changing the residential mix in poor communities (a healthy mix of low, middle and upper-income residents).

Jay Van Groningen
Communities First Association
www.communitiesfirstassociation.org
vangronj@gmail.com

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 42 other followers