Case scenario analysis and applications

Charitable Foundations and Discrepancies Between Ideology and Needs

There are ten steps that have been defined as critical components of community development: defining the professional's role; researching the community; entering the community; raising consciousness; assessing needs and assets; defining goals; building strategies; strategizing; taking action, and evaluating. While enacting these steps, engagement with the community is just as necessary as the community activist acting as an initiator and a teacher. The organizer can function as a mediator, supporter, and encourager of community-generated events, not simply a director and teacher. Although establishing ties with a community in need can be difficult and time-consuming because of the initial perception that the individual giving aid is an 'outsider,' because of the added credibility that working with insiders can give about the needs of the community, an integrated approach is usually advisable. Community change can seldom be imposed effectively throughout. There must be knowledge, both qualitative and quantitative, of what the community needs. Data based purely on 'outside' sources may be too broad, and there may be specific, community-based needs that should be addressed when determining how to use scarce financial resources.

Thus there is another critical step in aiding the community that must not be forgotten: soliciting funding is a necessary part of the development of any charity. Often there is a discrepancy between the ideological motivations of the funder and the actual needs of the population. For example, an anti-childhood obesity campaign funded by Nike may want to stress physical education and sports as a component of the program, even though it might be equally important to stress lifestyle components of physical movement such as walking to school and biking that are not necessarily sports in the traditional sense, but promote activity throughout the day. In this instance, the funding organization has a clear ideology (to promote total abstinence from drugs) which clashes with the perceived needs of the community, as advocated by the students who have been recruited by the program. They wish to stress harm reduction and talk about other issues of interest to high-risk youth such as violence, gang membership, and socioeconomic disenfranchisement. The designated role models for this program were chosen because they could present a realistic picture of the needs of the community. But to have true 'street cred' they must talk about community needs and bring their experience to bear upon their presentation in a realistic fashion.

Empirical research about the community can be used as one persuasive tactic to convince funders of the need to shift the emphasis of the program. For example, abstinence-only sex education programs have proven to be notably less effective than those which take a more realistic view of teen's sexual habits. Using the research that was involved in the design of the program might persuade the fundraisers that their original conception of the program is not productive and will not necessarily have the desired results. The fact that peer facilitators are being used show that the funders do have a sense efforts arising from within the community are more effective than efforts imposed purely from without. Establishing a mission statement is important for an organization that strives to be community-based, but the mission statement should not be so inflexible that the community cannot make a contribution to it. In this instance, the role of the peer advocates is being undercut, because actual knowledge of insiders about what the community really needs is not being used.

Community development programs that do not address some of the systemic injustices that give rise to problems -- such as the social inequities that drive teens to sell and to use drugs; the lack of a supportive educational system; and racist attitudes within society that stigmatize young black males within the justice system -- are often more popular with government and private, corporate fundraisers. These programs are less confrontational in nature and do not adapt a radical, empowering paradigm that could make institutional leaders truly accountable for their roles in perpetuating the problems they purport to condemn (Fischer & Schragge 2000:8). But activists know that if there is to be real change, the change must address the root causes and not simply the superficial effects like recreational drug use.

This issue must be addressed gently, however, when talking with funders. Community workers often experience difficulties if they are perceived as 'biting' the hand that feeds them, particularly if they see their role as an activist and an advocate. The danger of being too aggressive in promoting what is seen as an anti-corporate or anti-government ideology, after all, is that funding will be lost. Community workers often see themselves as giving voice to the voiceless -- which is a vitally important mission, but voices cannot be heard in the absence of at least some financial support.