Participation Expectations

I have been involved in service related to food accessibility for years, primarily interested in volunteering at soup kitchens and “feeding-the-homeless” events at churches. I always found colorful and very social characters at these events, and one of my favorite things to do was just hear about their day. One of the most common pieces I heard about were the treks around the city for the scheduled free dinners and soup kitchen openings. They would tell me about how day after day, they would follow the calendar and live off of whatever was being served. It was these kinds of stories that lead me to my practice experience organization.

I would wonder about other options that could take them out of this weekly cycle of waiting in line for the meal of the day on wheels or the next donation box of food that no one else wanted. How great would it be they could be given the opportunity to help themselves? To make their own decisions about what they eat and to be able to provide for their own? When I discovered City Slicker Farms and its mission, I was excited.  The community farms allowed people to receive the fresh produce that were so out of reach for the lower-income families and to really be a part of improving their own wellness. People would be more able to participate in the improvement of their lives and not depend so much on planned menus and the charity of others. It brought communities together, educated them on the importance of nutrition and the environment, and allowed people to take more control of their lives and health.

This past week, “participation” was the main topic, and when I tried to fit City Slickers into one of the degrees of participation listed by Duraiappah, it was difficult to fit the community farms program into just one category because there were so many components to the program itself. Community members can schedule a meeting with the organization to express concerns or comments about the activities, layout, and production of the farms. Community members who have worked the farms enough are given the opportunities to run them as if it were their own, but the organization still manages the harvest, weighing, and main food stand sales. Planning and evaluation boards comprised completely of community members are allowed a lot of power in the workings of the farms, and individuals can request to have a small farm installed in their own backyards to run on their own. As far as I could see, the organization offers a lot of opportunities for community participation and development, a chance to really take the community places.

What, however, is the true impact of a community participation model that seems effective given the issues  if the community is not participating? As a kind of volunteer orientation, I was sent to the various community farm sites in Oakland to see how the farms functioned, see the farming participants, and meet the coordinators. At each of the sites, there were many volunteers and each of the coordinators were either former volunteers or homeowners who decided to tear down their backyard fences and open their home to the community. One thing I realized though was that almost all of the volunteers I met were not from the target community of low-income, homeless, or struggling. Instead, I found a lot of student volunteers, middle class gardeners, and families on field trips. I was reminded of one of the challenges for effective participation that Duraiappah includes at the end of his piece: Lack of public interest in becoming involved. How much can an organization aid in community development with only a small percent of the community involved? The community is definitely empowered with the ability to make choices through the organization, but what if no one is interested in making those choices or acting on these opportunities?

It may have just been the time of day I went or the site I visited, but the concern about the community’s interest and participation in its development has definitely been planted.