When I first starting working at
Agape, I was shocked by the vast inequality in Memphis. I was startled every
time I heard a particularly shocking narrative or heard about corruption or
injustice in Memphis politics. I was also excited that almost every division of
Agape hosts countless community development events that promote parent and
family engagement. I thought this would finally be the way to combat all of the
issues that unsettled me. However, it is very difficult to get community member
to attend. The elementary school that I observe normally has 30% attendance
even though it is completely free, includes transportation and two meals. My
boss makes herself regularly available to parents and students, but she is
rarely contacted. We often have huge sponsored cookouts and parties, but
sometimes only ten families will come. Agape even seemed to do a great job of
eliminating or minimizing many of the barriers that would prevent individuals
from coming. I was shocked, unsettled
and confused. I always thought that we just need the manpower and funding to
get positive programming off the ground and the community would embrace it and
benefit from it.
As days turned into weeks, I
noticed that I settled into the day-to-day activities of my non-profit. I no
longer gasped at startling statistics or was angered by politicians that
capitalize on the impoverished. I began to see wealth inequality as something
so insurmountable. I began to lose hope. My supervisor all the way up to the
director did not have a tangible solution to get community members to attend
community development events. We altered the times and dates, offered
incentives, and included food and daycare services. We even regularly survey
community members to see how we can improve our programming. I found myself
mimicking my boss and co-workers around me who spoke of poverty as a static
entity that we as a small non-profit had little control over. A war waged in my
head. Is community development or policy reform more effective for long term,
sustainable change? When I started college, I believed that immediate, on the
ground community engagement was the best solution towards bettering the community,
but Agape’s frequently less than successful attempts made me question the value
of direct community development.
However, I started meeting
individual community members, especially children, and they told me their
story. Once I heard their narrative, I more clearly understood the emotional
component of community engagement and realized how difficult it was for them to
have time or see the value in our programming. They are so bombarded by
everyday difficulties that it is almost impossible for them to plan far in
advanced. Even though their struggle can seem very foreign, I am constantly
finding people that deeply care about their families and communities the same
way I do. It may not look or sound the same, but many are invested in the
greater good and want to restore their neighborhoods in intrinsic and extrinsic
ways. Knowing this gave me great hope for stronger, healthier, and continuously
vibrant neighborhoods in Frayser and Raleigh.
I can understand your frustration - at the PD Office we see a lot of the same issues with parents getting involved in their child's life and supporting them post-adjudication. A lot of these families simply don't have the time or resources to devote to rehabilitating their child. We recently had a child return to court for violating his parole by leaving his home - why? to go to the grocery store with his mom since she couldn't find anyone to watch him and leaving him alone would have been a much 'riskier' compromise. It's not that this mother didn't care or understand the terms of his parole, she just had to work with the situation she was presented with, and now her child is facing a much longer parole time. Our office tries to prevent situations like these and minimize the consequences, but, like you said, these "on the ground" approaches are not always as impactful as we would like. Changing the judicial system to allow for more flexible parole arrangements and greater subjectivity when evaluating violations would be a much more effective way to help these kids, but our office cannot accomplish system-wide policy change on its own.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete