Is a working definition of Community Engagement possible?... Here’s a try!

Community engagement connects people to improve lives where they live.

Community engagement brings together individual, institutional, and social network interests to serve the common good. It is through the community building (institutional), community organizing (social networks), and community leadership (individual) infrastructure that community engagement happens.

Community engagement thrives in a context where partnerships, collaborations and coalitions are nourished. Its values are rooted in inclusion, tolerance, and active participation.

These values and context are operationalized in a real-world environment that is first and foremost diverse. This ‘diversity reality’ must be understood, acknowledged, and recognized as the driving cultural paradigm of community engagement.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

The definition offered above is intended to be a ‘working draft’. It is intended to be a ‘starting point’ for people embarking on a community engagement process to mull over, revise, and adjust to local realities.

Please chime in with your comments and ideas.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

What exactly is community engagement? A Google search and the Wikipedia definition provide some rather interested, but narrow and incomplete results. Academic research does not fare much better.

It appears that the term ‘community engagement’ is currently being used most in university settings referring to engaging students in community life. Also, there seems to be quite a few entrepreneurs that are trying to claim it as an area of consultancy. Interestingly enough, the domain name ‘communityengagement’ is still available as a .com and .org.

One thing that community engagement is not, is ‘civic’ engagement. Civic engagement connotes a certain level of formality, duty, ‘citizen-driven’, voters registration, Elks Club-type engagement that is intuitively different from ‘community’ engagement.

Neither is community engagement the same as ‘citizen participation’. Citizen participation usually refers to involvement in the political process; i.e.: public hearings.

Democratic governance, citizen juries, innovative polling practices and other emerging techniques offer a glimpse of how related fields can have similar “feel” to community engagement. New technologies (the internet and smart phones in particular) are reshaping how engagement, participation, and mobilization can happen in lighting speed. Certainly, the recent elections are a vivid example.

While all of the above is certainly related to community engagement, community engagement is more… Yet, can we define it? We can try.

The definition offered below is intended to be a ‘working draft’. It is intended to be a ‘starting point’ for people embarking on a community engagement process to mull over, revise, and adjust to local realities.

Please chime in with your comments and ideas.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

Community engagement connects people to improve lives where they live.

Community engagement brings together individual, institutional, and social network interests to serve the common good. It is through the community building (institutional), community organizing (social networks), and community leadership (individual) infrastructure that community engagement happens.

Community engagement thrives in a context where partnerships, collaborations and coalitions are nourished. Its values are rooted in inclusion, tolerance, and active participation.

These values and context are operationalized in a real-world environment that is first and foremost diverse. This ‘diversity reality’ must be understood, acknowledged, and recognized as the driving cultural paradigm of community engagement.

Successful community engagement yields tangible, practical, meaningful, measureable, and impactful results valuable to the community at large, not only to those engaged in the process or vested in the results.

Political Constituency and Community Engagement

POLITICAL CONSTITUENCY AND COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT

A sobering thought: Even in this exhilarating, exciting, and most expensive of all political campaigns ever, less than 1/3 (29%) of adults in the U.S. voted for the winning presidential candidate.

The math:

• There are approximately 3 million people in the U.S.
• Of these, approximately 3/4 (225,000,000) are over 18.
• Of which a bit less than 3/4 (72% or 168,750,000) are registered to vote.
• Of these, again a bit less than 3/4 (73.11% or 123,373,000) voted in the presidential election.
• 53% (65,388,000) of those that voted did so for Obama.
• That is 29% of adults in the U.S.

A sobering thought indeed.

First, the Bad News Analysis:

At many local elections the percent of the population that votes for the winning candidate may be as low as 10%. Ten percent of the adults in a given jurisdiction may determine who wins Mayor, City Council, or any other of these critical offices. That means that in a City or Congressional district of 50,000 you can get elected with a constituency of 5,000. Given that most voting households have at least two voting adults, you can get elected by responding to 2,500 family units.

Traditionally, it is these people that vote that the politicians remain most accountable to. It is they who get the favors; it is they that get listened to; it is they who get the politician re-elected over and over and over again.

Sure, the elected official must reach out to those that did not vote for him or her to ensure enough ‘pro voters’ are replaced with ‘new voters’. But, in the game of politics, this is most often a very calculated outreach. Once in office, all too often the question becomes: What is the least number of new people I need to convince to get re-elected?

The above analysis is not an indictment or a negative statement of the political process or elected officials. Rather, it is the blunt reality of how government all too often works.

In the world of community engagement, on the other hand, we are about reaching out across the political and socio-economic spectrum to ensure all have a voice at the table of public discourse and decision making. We want the disenfranchised at the table: Among many – at times 90% of our neighbors! – this includes the ones who did not vote; the ones who could not vote; the ones who could not leave work to go to the public hearing; the ones who did not answer the door; the forgotten renter; the transient; the undocumented; the ones who speak another language… and many many more.

So, it is not difficult to see why there will also be an uneasy, healthy friction between the world of politics and the world of community engagement.

Political expediency oftentimes mandates a process that listens to those most able to speak, which more often than not means listening to those who already have a voice… It is most often a tried-and-true, prescribed process.

Community engagement most often requires time, effort, and outreach to those less likely to speak and therefore is seldom if ever expedient… It is most often a messy, rambling, lengthy process; seldom expedient.

Proceed With Caution

Wherever there are efforts to collaborate and partner with government in community engagement efforts there should be a big sign saying: Proceed with Caution. All too often the political listening process is truly an ‘illusion of inclusion’: Go through the motions of a public hearing; get written comments; ‘engage’ the citizenry… Seldom is there an attempt – or a reason – to legitimately reach out at the soccer fields; at the apartment complex; in the waiting hall of social service agencies; at the basketball courts.

Thus, when we speak of ‘community engagement’ to elected officials (or political appointees) we should understand that their inherent bias is to filter the information through their lenses: How can this ‘engagement’ help me connect to potential voters? While this might be an obvious observation, it is all too often the ‘elephant in the room’.

The outcome of a successful community engagement process is not always necessarily aligned with the interests of a successful political process.

So, does this mean that joining forces with the government to pursue community engagement should not be done? No! Quite the contrary.

The New School of Thought

As we move forward in this post-partisan world, it is not only possible to join forces with government to pursue community engagement efforts, it is indispensable.

Recently I was fortunate enough to attend the National League of Cities (NCL) conference. While attending small sessions, a large plenary, walking the hallways, and sitting at the bar, it became increasingly apparent to me how much these elected officials are ‘just like us’.

There were over 7,000 elected officials and political appointees at the conference. Many of them were from small towns and cities. There seemed to be a good cross section of full-time (life-long) politicians and part-time politicians who are also businesswomen, shop-owners, and non-profit managers.

In so many ways, many of these folks seemed very similar to the folks that attend our NeighborWorks America Community Leadership Institutes (CLI): Regular folks that for varied reasons have a personal interest in making things better in their neighborhood and/or community – and are willing to invest personal time and energy in leading the charge… Some choose to pursue the elected route (the NLC crowd); others choose to be key volunteers (the CLI crowd)… But ultimately, they are us and we are them.

I came back from the conference with a renewed and reaffirmed sense of excitement that the world of politics and community engagement can – and should – work together. Healthy tensions will remain – and that is a good thing. Each has different expectations. But, both can find common ground in improving techniques, sharing tools, and joining forces to reach out to the political constituency and maximize community engagement.

Postscript

As a very hopeful sign of things to come, I was extremely pleased to see that the incoming administration is asking supporters to hold “Change is Coming” neighborhood discussions the weekend of December 13th and 14th. What caught my attention was the request to be inclusive in these sessions. The notice said: “Please invite those who might not have been involved in the campaign, even those who might have supported our opponent.”

In my own neighborhood (Silver Spring, MD) we’ve already begun this process. On November 15th, we convened a ‘call to action’, inviting folks to join us in discussing how the energy given to the presidential elections could be channeled to local efforts. We expected 30 people to show up. Over 80 did. Watch a video capturing the energy in the church basement at

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8334800488825004233&hl=en

NOTE: The video footage was taken with a camera phone and then spliced together ‘amateurishly’ (i.e.: much more a ‘labor of love’ than a professional production.)

TOP TEN TRENDS IN COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT

ok... Let the debate begin...

There are a zillion things happening in our culture that impact how communities engage. However, there are a limited number of these cultural "stuff" that seem to make a difference in our field... Here's my token top ten... Please add yours:

1. It's about "place". We live in a three dimensional world... After all is said and done - and respecting the increasing importance of the virtual dimension - the physical location of where we live, play, worship, socialize, and work constitutes the most sustainable venues for people-to-people engagement. (Place rules!)

2. Networking A-New. Facebook; LinkedIn; Tweeter; MySpace... That is the list today, tomorrow it'll be a different list. (The virtual world does matter!)

3. Social entrepreneurship is king. There's a fine line between non-profit and for-profit... Indeed, most of the most amazing work in our field is done by people that do the work without giving a thought to 'profit', institution, or structure. (The world is flat!)

4. Youth Yaks. Txt bk or di... If we don't engage the youth in our work, we are planning for self-obsolescence. (Period!)

5. Accountability. We'd better be good, and be able to prove it... Regardless of how good we are, if we can not account for the measurable, impactful results, others will barely notice. (Bean counters, unite!)

6. It's ok to shoot the breeze. Much to the surprise of many, conversation still matters... Good old fashion conversation, story-telling, and just simply 'hanging out' - without a definitive outcome in mind - is still effective. (Talk Talk Talk!)

7. Diversity is dead. Long live diversity... In our zeal to be inclusive, we may have lost the ability to focus, target, and be definitive. (The absurdity of political correctness?!)

8. They are us. We are them... Some of my best friends are bankers, funders, and some are even rich - yet they understand us, and even fought along side of us! (Partnerships amongst friend is easier than among enemies!)

9. Internationale. "It's a small world after all"... What happens in Pakistan matters in Peoria - and we can learn from each other. (Connecting is easy!)

10. Soccer Moms; Single Moms; Super Moms. The 'feminization' of the field... Women constitute an ever increasing number of participants in community engagement circles. (Viva la femme!)

Community Organizing in the Presidential Race

I write this to you from Chicago.

I just came back from a field trip to the Southside, including going by Obama's house and then meeting in a church basement with local community organizers including a young Muslim that is mentoring black and latino kids... Also heard the Executive Director of the Alianza Hispana here in Chicago give the most eloquent history lesson about community organizing I've heard!... Now, why is THAT not on YouTube?

-----

So, Gov. Palin has totally dissed my chosen life passion, professional pursuit, and civic commitment… To remind us, she said:

“I guess a small-town mayor is sort of like a "community organizer," except that you have actual responsibilities.”

I wonder how it would have landed had she said:

“I guess a small-town mayor is sort of like a "teacher," except that you have to actually know something.”; or,

“I guess a small-town mayor is sort of like most "oil companies," except that you have to actually care about who you do business with.”; or,

“I guess a small-town mayor is sort of like some “CEOs," except that you have to actually account for your results.”

Her direct affront on “community organizers” reaffirms her negative perception of those of us who care – and have empathy – for others; those of us that believe that together we make a grander whole; and those of us that see the discernment of individuals and self interest as prerequisite and complementary to (not in lieu of or independent of) constructive collective action.

I wonder how she thinks the evangelical right and the anti-abortion forces have been so successful if not by doing incredibly successful “community organizing”?… I wonder how SHE got elected if not by the efforts of her own “community organizing” friends?

Unfortunately, this rhetoric takes me back to when working in Mississippi in the early 80’s, I was told by local officials to “never, ever use the term ‘community organizing’ around here… You can use ‘outreach staff’ and/or volunteer coordinator… But, never, ever use around these hills that ‘commie’ term from them northeaster lefty loonies: community organizing.”… That was told to me by a small town mayor in Mississippi. He also happened to have been a key David Duke supporter. (For you younger guys, Google David Duke and you'll see what I mean!)

Obviously, Palin is trying to appeal to that segment of the American voter who want to reject anything resembling urban America – and all that implies. She is also trying to appeal to the rural, gun-trotting, SUV owner who wants to reject anything resembling the intellectual, broad-minded, educated America – and all that implies. Finally, she is obviously trying to appeal to the simple, conservative, narrow-minded electorate who want conservative, simple-minded solutions to complex problems… Evil exists? Defeat it!; Want health insurance? Pay for it!; Want oil independence? Drill! Drill! Drill!; You don’t like me? I’ll fight you!; Fight! Fight! Fight!


According to Palin – and by inference, her ticket - it seems we need to forget about talking through possible solutions, alternative options… Forget about listening to those that you disagree with; understanding their position… Forget about bringing people together that are being impacted by questionable policies and programs - or economic decisions - beyond their control… And, if you forget about all of this, of course there is no need for ‘community organizing’!

…And, I’d be remiss if I did not highlight the incredible lack of diversity in the crowd, the speakers, and the “thinking” of the Republican convention… Frankly, if America had a “White” Party, would it look much different? … THAT is a scary thought for the year 2020!... It may just be that demographically, the politics of fear the Republicans are presenting may just convince enough whites that this is their last best shot at remaining in power for just that one more election cycle… And, we all know where all those ‘community organizers’ work, right?

This gets personal in another way . I am the product of a system that bastardized the highest concepts of community organizing and turned a potential exemplary bottom-up system into a top-down authoritarian regime. (Yes, I am referring to Cuba, of course.) So I am hyper-sensitive to this issue, I know...

Community organizing is a real change agent - and both candidates seem to know it! It just happens that one party seems to know how to do it and the other is afraid of it!

The bottom line is: Will the number of Americans voting out of fear exceed the number of Americans excited about the possibilities of a new direction?... It truly seems to boil down to who is going to do a better job getting out the vote. And, we all know that to get out the vote, nothing works better than good ol’ community organizing!

Reemberto Rodriguez

Can community engagement and neighborhood revitalization actually be defined by anyone other than those individuals 'engaged' in community and those that are impacted by the 'revitalization'?... What is the role of the 'professional' in engaging communities and revitalizing neighborhoods?... Does traditional planning approach and organizing techniques suffice today? - Or, is there a new body of thought, provocative strategies, and innovation in this field?... Who knows? Who decides? Who speaks for whom?