Blog

• 7 Keys for Community Anchor Institutions

  Feb 28, 2012      Posted by Rich Harwood      11 comments      Add your comment      [Link directly to this post]
  
  

  
  

  The need for community anchor institutions keeps coming up in conversations and so I want to lay out 7 keys for moving ahead productively. Let me be clear upfront: Communities cannot create change without these institutions, but not all actions will lead down the right path – and many will be downright harmful.

  
  

  I’ve been focused on this topic for years. At the Harwood Institute, anchor institutions fit into our larger definition of “boundary spanning organizations” – those special groups in communities that help to spark and lead change, convene and connect others, and focus on the community (rather than programs alone). Without such anchor institutions – along with other necessary capacities to create change, such as trusted leaders, effective networks, and productive norms, among others – a community can never change. Below are 7 keys to effective anchor institutions, and the very real traps many groups fall into that actively undermine their efforts. 

  
  

  1. Anchor institutions are focused on community-based strategies – what will move the needle in the community on, say, education or violence or some other critical issue. The trap is that organizations today all too often focus solely on improving, tweaking, or scaling their own programs. The key here is to adopt a community perspective. This frame will automatically get you and others thinking about the various pieces of the puzzle for creating change and how to mobilize resources to throughout the community to generate change. Importantly, you’ll still need to figure out where to start and get traction: across the entire community, in a neighborhood, on a slice of an issue. 

  
  

  2. Anchor institutions bring people together across divides and fault lines – there are far too few organizations and groups that use their position and credibility in communities to bring people together across dividing lines – to help people see and hear one another, work through real differences, figure out the common ground that does exist, and engage the community it creating a new trajectory. The trap here is that we end up bringing together only people we already know, those we feel most comfortable with, and those we mistakenly believe hold credibility in the community. 

  
  

  3. Anchor institutions engage the “public” and “leaders and organizations” – too often just one or the other is done, as if action on one satisfies the needs of the other. It doesn’t. Engaging both is necessary. Then, we must bring together what we learn from both – along with data and other resources for making good decisions – to figure out the best community-based strategies for moving ahead. The trap is to skip these steps, or believe we’ve already done it when we haven’t, and the result is always half-baked strategies and misguided efforts.  

  
  

  4. Anchor institutions spark innovation among others – too often organizations think they themselves need to create and own all programs in a community. But going down that path is a march of folly. No one organization alone can move the needle on education in a community, or violence, or health care, or income security. If that’s the case, where does that leave an anchor institution? My answer: to help create the conditions in the community for organizations, leaders and people to innovate so that new capacity and leadership emerges from within the community. The trap here is that we assume that one group – usually our own – has all the answers and owns the path to change. 

  
  

  5. Anchor institutions aren’t always in the lead – the mere mention of “anchor institutions” can lead some of us to think that our organization must always be in the lead. But, on any given issue, many groups and organizations may already be hard at work in communities, and for an anchor institution the judgment to be made is: how best to support these efforts. This means anchor institutions must be comfortable playing different roles at different times. The trap is that we succumb to typical turf battles, wanting all the credit, and assuming we’re always leading the parade. 

  
  

  6. Anchor institutions focus on issues AND underlying conditions for change – there’s a “sweet spot” that anchor institutions need to focus on: generating community-based change on specific challenges or issues and developing the right community capacity to bring about that change. This means the development of leaders (at all levels); other anchor institutions; networks for learning, innovation and re-calibrating strategies; among others. Without the right capacity, community-based strategies will flail and fail, and over the long-term the community will not have the ability to tackle future concerns. The trap is that we spend all our resources and time on change strategies but never address conditions – an unsustainable approach. 

  
  

  7. Anchor institutions care about a community’s narrative – the great hidden factor in a community’s ability to change is its narrative. Many communities suffer from a negative narrative – “We can’t do it here,” or “We already tried that,” or “We’re waiting for the knight on a white horse.” Effective anchor institutions help to cultivate a new narrative of self-trust and hope in their community by shining a light on pockets of change that demonstrate that things can get done. The trap is we use traditional public relations, four-color brochures, and other techniques to sell a community on a pre-packaged narrative that bears little resemblance or relevance to the community. 

  
  

  There’s much more to say here, but for today I wanted to lay out some keys to help focus the conversation moving ahead. I plan to write more about this topic. Stay tuned. I believe this is one of the most important challenges we must address if communities are to take ownership of their own future.

• Forcing U.S. soldiers to fight the last battle alone

  Feb 21, 2012      Posted by Rich Harwood      9 comments      Add your comment      [Link directly to this post]
  
  

  
  

  The U.S. has been fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan and now soldiers are coming home without adequate supports. I’ve written on this topic before, and I do so here again because I cannot fathom how we allow this to happen. We make soldiers carry the body bags of their dead comrades, and then we make those returning home carry their own baggage of injuries to mind and body filled with unrelenting pain. 

  
  

  Just over the past week or so I have read and seen numerous stories and events involving soldiers returning from overseas. For instance: 

  
  

  • There are recent stories of how trained therapy dogs can provide enormous stability, comfort and hope to soldiers who return with PTSD. 

  • In Atlanta’s Hartsfield  Airport, there are large advertisements spread out on walls announcing “support” for the troops and how people can get involved. 

  • As I walk through other airports, there are small and large groups of people waiting outside the gates with balloons and oversized cards to welcome home soldiers. 

  • First Lady Michelle Obama has launched various initiatives dealing with returning soldiers. 

  
  

  And yet, amid these fine efforts, there are the unending nightmares of soldiers, many of whom have done multiple tours of duty, all in the name of our country and its ideals. When they return they are left to whither and suffer in isolation, alone. 

  
  

  So many of our soldiers get the run-around when it comes to their health benefits and health services, which is enough to enrage anyone, but how about someone has been in the midst of war and is in urgent need of care and compassion? Many soldiers don’t receive mental health diagnoses for months; meanwhile, they’re left to be swallowed alive by their troubling flashbacks, depression, and other problems. Indeed, they are left at war within themselves – here at home. 

  
  

  The effectiveness of the therapy dogs is now under-review amid grumblings the dogs are “costly” to train. But while we’re waiting for the results of yet another study, how much evidence do we need beyond what the Pentagon and others have already gathered to know there are real positive benefits at work here? And costly: are we really willing to put side-by-side the costs of conducting a war with the costs of training some dogs for returning soldiers? My arguments here are not about ideology or re-litigating whether we should have ever gone to war, but about the silly and shallow arguments and the smokescreens that are put forward not to care for our soldiers. 

  
  

  Another example: When soldiers cannot penetrate VA services they are left to fend for themselves, after being trained in war to always support their unit. When they do get access, many don’t receive transportation from one health service to another, so they are left out in the cold, the wet, the wind, having to drag themselves to their next appointment. Just how much can it cost to make sure there are enough case workers who can cut through the red tape, find the right health care, and ensure soldiers can get to their appointments and with dignity? 

  
  

  Then there are the rocky marital and family relationships many soldiers come home to. Is it asking too much to provide enough counselors to sort out their home-front, when these men and women went to the battle front for us?  

  
  

  As I write this piece I feel myself getting angrier by the word. How can we ask someone to put their life on the line, in many cases to do multiple tours of duty, and to come home where we fail to act aggressively to support them – indeed, to act as aggressively as we did when sending them into battle in the first place? 

  
  

  Isn’t it time we carried the burden for our troops? If not us, then who?

• Keeping it Real

  Feb 14, 2012      Posted by Rich Harwood      14 comments      Add your comment      [Link directly to this post]
  
  

  Reflections from Greg Braylock, Jr. Education Impact Specialist for United Way of Greater Toledo

  
  

  Early in the 3½ day Harwood Lab, the message sank in: organizations that seek to serve people too often know of the people they work to serve, but don’t really know the people they serve. This subtlety becomes the difference between failed or mildly successful plans, policies, initiatives, and programs, and those that are successful, sustained, citizen driven and system supported. 

  
  

  

  In an effort to be more relevant to our changing communities, we as philanthropic and service organizations are immersing ourselves in data and statistics about those we seek to serve – which isn’t, as Harwood made clear, all bad. Although, more often than not, the top question in meetings of community leaders is some variation of, “What does the data say about this?”, or “What do the stats tell us about them?” Our ability to research and recite statistics about the people we are working to help seems to govern how relevant we are in circles of influence within our communities. 

  
  

  However, if we were to go beyond the research and recitation, I bet we’d find that very few of our organizations really know the people for whom the data seems to speak. The litmus test - If we were to go into the homes of the people on whom we gather data, and tell them what we know of them, would they say, “Yep, you’ve got me right on!” Or, would they say, “Ok, so what, you think you know me?” 

  
  

  This scenario, posed in a slightly different format by Harwood, made me re-examine my current thoughts on what it means to be a relevant and authentic organization. As a result, I framed this relevancy question in a way familiar to my generation - how real are our organizations keeping it? 

  
  

  “Keeping it real”, the urban millennials’ call for authenticity, has more to do with looking outward and being a reflection of the community than many realize. 

  
  

  Realities – Do we know and understand, and are we able to identify with and speak to, the daily realities of the people and community we seek to serve and empower? Do those realities direct our efforts? 

  
  

  Expectations – How deeply do we understand expectations the people and community we serve have of themselves and of us as philanthropic and service organizations? What drives the similarities and differences between their expectations of themselves, our expectations of them, their expectations of us, and our expectations of us? 

  
  

  Aspirations – How deeply do we know, and how clearly can we speak to, the aspirations of the people and community we exist to serve? How resolved are we to make the aspirations of those we serve our organizational aspirations and priorities? 

  
  

  Love – Do we love the people and community we seek to serve with a love rooted in relationship that says – I see you. I know you. We’re in this together, and together we will rise. 

  
  

  What I learned about looking outward…we’ve got to keep it real. 

  
  

  -Greg Braylock, Jr. Education Impact Specialist for United Way of Greater Toledo is part of the United Way Education Mobilization Group and a 2010 Harwood Public Innovators Lab Alum.

• "Halftime in America:" Missing the point

  Feb 7, 2012      Posted by Rich Harwood      4 comments      Add your comment      [Link directly to this post]
  
  

  
  

  I hope you caught the Super Bowl ad “Halftime in America,” featuring Clint Eastwood. It’s amazing. Like Chrysler’s ad with Eminem, this one captures the country’s mood and people’s aspirations for moving forward. But the response to the ad reflects the sheer silliness and shallowness of our politics. Now, each of us must disregard the political posturing and tune into what we really want. 

  
  

  Here’s a brief snippet of the ad which Eastwood narrated: 

  
  

  I’ve seen a lot of tough eras, a lot of downturns in my life. And, times when we didn’t understand each other. It seems like we’ve lost our heart at times. When the fog of division, discord, and blame made it hard to see what lies ahead. 

  
  

  But after those trials, we all rallied around what was right, and acted as one. Because that’s what we do. We find a way through tough times, and if we can’t find a way, then we’ll make one. 

  
  

  All that matters now is what’s ahead. How do we come from behind? How do we come together? And, how do we win? 

  
  

  No sooner than the ad went live, those on the right and left took up sides. Some said the ad was mere cheerleading for the government bailout of auto companies. Karl Rove, the Republican strategist, wrote on FOX Nation: “… administration officials and Obama campaign leaders immediately took to Twitter to draw attention to the ad as support for their man…Why did Team Obama need to put this ad in a political context?” It’s true the administration has tried to get as much mileage from the ad as possible. 

  
  

  The responses reminded me of a discussion I heard yesterday between House Majority Leader Eric Cantor and Steve Case, the founder of AOL and other high tech businesses. Case was making the point that there is much agreement in the nation to support better conditions for entrepreneurialism – and thus job creation. He said he comes at this issue as neither a Democrat nor a Republican, but as an American. Like the Chrysler ad, he too believes there is much Americans can rally around together. 

  
  

  But as Case was talking Cantor interrupted him, and rather than address Case’s substantive points, Cantor launched into a broadside attack against Obama and what he sees as the president’s ongoing quest to divide America and the gap between the president’s rhetoric and action. 

  
  

  In both instances – the ad and Case’s comments – there were attempts to “bring people together,” “find a way through tough times,” and “win” for the country, not a political party (all quotes from the Chrysler ad – see above). It’s not impossible. For instance, just consider for a moment that Eastwood says he votes Republican, his political leanings are libertarian, and yet there he was in the Chrysler ad. 

  
  

  Nowadays everything seems to become immediately politicized. But we don’t need to fall for this approach, its negative rhetoric and its predictable outcomes. I see Chrysler’s ad and Steve Case’s comments as moments of piercing through the silliness and shallowness of politics and offering an alternative way to see and engage in community and public life. It can – it does – happen. 

  
  

  So what’s the takeaway for each of us? 

  
  

  1. Sometimes when we see or hear something that inspires us, calls us forward, taps into our deepest aspirations, we must disregard all the political chatter, and let it touch us so we and others can see an alternate path forward. We must ward off the negativity and finger-pointing and literally open ourselves up, and make room for seeing the possibility of a different path. Will you do this? 

  
  

  2. Too often in our own daily lives we are confined by our knee-jerk responses to something and the desire to take up sides. But in doing so we forfeit the possibility there might be ways to come together with others and get stuff done. We must be willing to suspend our knee-jerk responses and listen, engage, debate, and figure out where progress is possible. Will you do this? 

  
  

  The endless acrimony, divisiveness and finger-pointing that contaminate society will give way, in large part, when each of us decides to take a different path and when our individual actions roll-up into a larger collective purpose. Make the choice – it’s ours to be had. .