Community – Getting it Right
by Maurice Lim Miller

Over my 20 years with Asian Neighborhood Design, I have noticed that more often than not, the individuals most successful in moving out of poverty were surrounded by supportive relationships with knowledgeable people. These relationships play a very significant role in how a person gets his or her life together. I used to joke that instead of providing job skills training or housing, our agency should start a dating service. Over the years, many of us have come to realize that we are only as stable as the people with whom we surround ourselves.

Policymakers and funders of poverty alleviation programs are recognizing that “building community,” or enhancing supportive relationships, may be the most effective strategy to move entire communities toward self-sufficiency. This development acknowledges that affordable housing and job skills training are essential, but asks for much more. Programs such as ours can be made more effective if we enhance community-building efforts based on trust and mutuality.

Trust and Mutuality

The term “community” is often used very loosely. It can mean residents of a particular neighborhood, those of a particular ethnicity, or even those of a common concern, such as the environmental community. Policymakers, funders, and service providers often define community to fit their needs. People struggling to get out of poverty should be able to define their “community” themselves, based on what they, their families, and friends identify as their common values and beliefs. For this article, networks sharing a deep sense of trust and mutuality are called “affinity” communities.

Many people identify themselves as part of a broad network – a neighborhood or a racial or ethnic group. These networks are so diverse that even if someone identifies strongly with their ethnic group, they have probably developed trust and mutuality only with a smaller group of people, based on shared experience and values.

For example, Asians in this country are often treated or talked about as one homogenous group. Yet there are dramatic differences in language, culture, and historic conflict among Asian homelands. To find a true sense of community, you need to look more deeply at the qualities of people, not just where they live or what they may look like.

Too often the terms “neighborhood” and “community” are used interchangeably. As Tom Dewar, now with the MacArthur Foundation, describes in his article “Hunting for Hope,” a background paper prepared for the Jessie Ball duPont Fund in June, 1993, the terms should be distinguished. “People often know they share the same ‘neighborhood’ but don’t feel much ‘community.’” Most Americans do not turn to their neighbors when they lose a job or have problems with their teenager. Instead, they turn to friends and family with whom they feel a sense of community, even if they live far away.

People-based initiatives targeting those on welfare, the homeless, or even children see the primary community as the group of clients they are serving. Yet, welfare-to-work moms do not all see themselves as one community. Such categorical targeting is done for the convenience and control of the funding source, not for the benefit of the recipient. 

If you were to ask these moms what would help them most in the long term, you’d find that job opportunities and support services for their children, partners, and extended families would be a priority. Most would also want to stay close to their trusted friends. They turn to these people to stay self-sufficient. Ultimately, there must be a shift from dependence on service providers to the interdependence that lies within healthy affinity communities. It is these affinity communities that will revitalize a neighborhood, rather than the other way around.

Recognizing Patterns, Raising Norms

Personal relationships are a key factor in identifying affinity communities. It’s easy to draw an artificial line to define a neighborhood’s boundaries. But it’s also possible to identify the common patterns of behavior that mark an underlying community. From the outside, these patterns might not be apparent. They are critical because they indicate accepted community norms. 

For example, some affinity communities follow similar job patterns. In the San Francisco Bay area Filipino community, many people have followed one another into jobs as airport security personnel. In some communities, a significant number of people may drive taxis or start laundries. While occupations are not the defining element of an affinity community, aspiring to particular occupations may indicate accepted “norms” of behavior. Once this pattern is understood, new opportunities can be added that build on the expectation, perhaps creating a career ladder.

Patterns and norms can also be seen in educational expectations. The educational norm in one community may be that kids just graduate from high school, while in another community the norm may be to graduate from college. If there is a negative education pattern, such as an acceptance of dropping out of school, new programs to change that pattern and expectation can target a particular group. These indicators or types of accepted patterns and expectations are present in housing, transportation, human services, and even attitudes about voting and civic engagement.

While everyone in an affinity community may not follow the exact same path, the behavior of members must be within the accepted norms of that group. If someone deviates too far, they may come under community pressure or criticism. Ultimately, they may develop new relationships and leave that initial community. These aspects of trust, as well as accountability to the group, can be extremely useful in consciously assisting a community to better itself. 

Strategies to Affect Patterns

Once patterns are recognized, funders and service providers can accurately map the community’s assets and needs. Investments can be targeted to enhance positive behaviors. Programs can be designed and implemented that address issues relevant to each community, rather than focusing on the lowest common denominator of large collaborations.

Many contemporary foundation initiatives work within large collaborative structures. These initiatives incorrectly assume that by convening the leaders of various communities and asking them to develop a joint plan, somehow the needs of each represented community will be met. Instead, what happens is that people agree to plans that they can live with, not plans that truly address their needs.

Affinity communities are held together by existing norms. That’s why plans incorporating these norms, developed within these self-defined structures, will be more effective. Within each community, strategies can be created that identify underdeveloped strengths. For example, if an entrepreneur hires the people most in need from their community, resources can grow those businesses or mentor more entrepreneurs. 

In California, a Cambodian family ran a very successful donut shop. They initially helped friends in their affinity community enter the donut business. Soon, many other people were helping other affinity community members, spreading this business pattern to more communities of Cambodians. Today, Cambodians run over 80 percent of the independent donut shops in California. The effectiveness of needed micro-business or business incubator programs will be much improved if they understand and target undeveloped and often invisible community strengths.

Many middle class parents give their children allowances to teach them how to make responsible economic decisions. The child is rarely asked for a 5-year plan. This same control is rarely given to low-income families or affinity communities. In a small giving fund I am involved with, local leaders have control over decisions on how the funds are used. As with other re-granting programs we have studied, local leaders hold applicants more accountable than we might have. But more significantly, these leaders comment on how rare it is for them to have control of funds for their communities.

Issues of Class

One of the most significant advantages of supporting an affinity community with a history of shared values, trust, and mutuality is that as members become more affluent, they will continue to be a part of the community. These communities are held together by shared values, rather than identities such as being homeless or living in the same neighborhood, creating a connection across class. This is especially important as people in that community become successful and move out of poverty.

People from poor communities that become more working- or middle-class should be encouraged to stay connected to those still struggling for self-sufficiency.  Foundation sponsored programs should have the ability to continue to engage those that are succeeding, providing some continued support in return for their acting as mentors or providing leadership to expand community expectations.  The patterns and norms of those succeeding can provide paths to success for many others. This is a good way to develop mixed-income communities. Funding initiatives that accept gentrification as a way of developing mixed-income neighborhoods  are less likely to succeed in improving the lot of the original poor residents because strangers are often viewed with suspicion, rather than as role models. 

Neighborhood- and people-based initiatives should recognize the importance of services that enhance the values, friendships, and mutuality of those within these self-defined networks. If they don’t, the upwardly mobile members are more likely to disconnect. This connection can greatly amplify the resources and positive patterns needed by those still struggling with poverty.

Funders rightfully worry about accountability.  Yet the peer pressure and natural accountability systems that already exist within affinity communities can serve to assure accountability for funds spent.  Mutuality and sharing creates standards of expected performance within each affinity community.  If you get assistance from peers, they are likely to expect you to succeed, or at least not mess things up.  Funders will find that the expectations of accountability set up by peer relationships are much stronger than those set up by any program or outside entity.

What’s Correct?

Working with affinity communities may not seem “politically correct.” These communities will often appear to be of one color or of one language, certainly of one set of values. Funding self-defined communities may appear counter to the “one-of-every-color” diversity that many funders expect low-income communities to embrace. Yet often these same professionals go home each night and find that they tend to affiliate only with others that share similar values and who often look and speak like themselves. 

To move toward a diverse society, we must acknowledge and support existing relationships. The wonderfully distinct affinity-based communities that make up our land should not melt away in a homogenous American culture. Existing relationships should be honored. As each affinity community becomes stronger, it adds a new, strong, and distinctly healthy element to a multicultural society.

What an awful meal we would create if we took a Mexican dish, Thai dish, Italian, German and Indian dishes, threw them all into one pot, and stirred. We do this when we force externally dictated, diverse governing bodies to stir all of their needs and ideas into one pot. Yet it can be such a joy to go down a street and see a Mexican restaurant, next to an Italian, Chinese and then an Indian restaurant – each standing on the street strong and distinct. But they do more than coexist. Together they draw more people to the area, making it more diverse, economically stronger, and an enjoyable place for all of us. And in the end, isn’t that what we all want for our communities?

Tips for Supporting Affinity Communities

• Look for affinity communities in neighborhood institutions or in projects where people volunteer (churches, mutual assistance associations, etc.).
• Have residents identify their own leaders and mentors, then give these leaders power over funds.  Hold them accountable for success by reporting to the funder as well as to their community members. 
• Don’t assume that poor people will act differently than you would. For example, if someone started a childcare center down the block, would you automatically send your children there? Many foundation-sponsored initiatives assume that residents would.
• If you target a diverse neighborhood, be prepared to fund at two levels – the plans of each affinity community and the plans that are common to all of the communities within the neighborhood.
• Support and assist the social and economic activities of the more upwardly mobile members of affinity communities. They can stay connected and offer more opportunities to their community, such as small entrepreneur development. 
• Map cultural norms and common patterns of behavior, which can be enhanced and promoted to increase self-sufficiency.

Contact:

• AND, 1182 Market St., Suite 300; San Francisco, CA 94108; 415-593-0423; fax: 415-593-0424; e-mail: info@andnet.org

AND provides housing and employment services primarily in the San Francisco Bay area. Its mission is to advance community programs and policies that empower, transform and improve the lives of low-income and disenfranchised individuals and communities. Its services include community planning and development, family and youth support, architecture, construction management, and job training in carpentry and cabinetmaking. 

AND’s business development, Specialty Mill Products, provides jobs in furniture and cabinet manufacturing produced for affordable housing developments, retail stores, health clubs, and other businesses. More than 100 people receive job training and advocates help more than 50 families develop personal self-sufficiency plans each year. AND received national attention for its achievements when President Clinton’s Commission on Race recognized AND’s effort toward ethnic diversity in the workforce. This year Executive Director Maurice Lim Miller attended the President’s State of the Union Address as the guest of First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Back to NFG Home Page.

1301 Connecticut Ave NW, Suite 500 • Washington, DC 20036 • Phone: (202) 833-4690 • Fax: (202) 833-4694 • nfg@nfg.org
Copyright © 1998-2008 • Web Site Usage Policies