Sacred Pipe Resource Center
Report date
November 2021
What has been most instrumental to your progress?
The first component of our activities for the Healing Centered Engagement project was to bring Native community members to the table to be willing to make positive community changes. As we stated in our application, this can be a difficult process given the history of conflict and avoidance in our State. We did have to persevere, and continue to do so, because the Native community's ability to proactively participate is one of the cornerstones of this project. We are working to ensure that each Council has adequate representation because each topic area has a host of issues that need identification and discussion so that we can brainstorm most efficient solutions.
The second component of our project that is critical is the Systems Councils. The Systems Councils are made up of representatives of agencies, organizations, and entities that have influence in their areas of specialty. The Systems Councils are important because they will be able to help support the Community Councils in their efforts and have committed to doing so in a culturally-competent manner. The Systems Councils will meet with the Community Councils to develop the long-term project but only after preparation for doing so. This is an important step in the process.
The final component for this project that is important is the Steering Committee. The Steering Committee is made up of the chairpersons of the Systems Councils as well as representatives from the Native American community in Bismarck-Mandan-Lincoln. The Steering committee provides the critical feedback loop that is necessary to guide the project and provide feedback on progress.
Key lessons learned
I think one of the key lessons in this work is to be flexible and be willing to make adaptations as necessary. An encouraging aspect of learning this lesson is that the changes were proposed by the Community Councils so it was encouraging to see them willing to take charge of the process in a sense. The first change we made was to meet as a larger Community Council (all the individual Councils combined) rather than as individual councils as was originally envisioned. This was done because the Councils saw that our discussions often covered the same kinds of overall issues. Some of the members that sat on more than one Council saw this and suggested that we meet as one Council until such time as we grew too large to have everyone on one Council. Another adaptation they requested was to be more deliberate in identifying the overarching issues impacting all of the Councils. We accomplished this task because of their investment in the process so that was very encouraging.
I think another key lesson was to not make assumptions. I think one thing I have considered a 'failure' is that we do not have the number of Systems Council members that I had anticipated. I think this is in part because I underestimated the non-Native response of not wanting to get involved or not wanting to take part in something that may be controversial. The Housing Systems Council, in particular, has been difficult because the rental unit association is powerful here. However, I have also learned to focus on strengths and who we DO have at the table rather than looking at numbers. We are still working to be more strategic about inviting people to that Council.
Reflections on inclusive, collaborative or resourceful problem-solving
The element that has been most important in making progress in this work has definitely been collaborative. From the recruitment of the Community and Systems Councils, to the gathering of the Steering Committee, to the work of putting together training and education resources for the Councils - it seems all aspects focus around the ability to be collaborative above all. Each group is fairly diverse and that diversity puts the collaborative element to the test. For example, our Community Councils are made up of professionals with graduate degrees, Native business owners, and people who are homeless and struggling. Our Systems Councils are made up of State government employees and non-profits that do not always see eye-to-eye on how to resolve issues. Collaborative makes the process harder but also richer because the discussions, while sometimes difficult, are ones that need to happen in safe spaces.
Other key elements of Community Innovation
I think a key element for this work is diplomacy, communication, and creativity. Our Councils struggle with stating hard truths and perspectives without alienating so the process of identifying common themes has been helpful in giving them the time to work through and discuss historical trauma, historical impacts, and personal anger. In the same way, the Systems Councils are finding that asking themselves what they don't know has been a helpful exercise in learning how to ask for help in learning. Both groups benefit from talking about tough issues in safe spaces prior to coming together; in other words, learning how to phrase or re-phase diplomatically. I think both groups are also learning about creativity and the type of creativity needed to address the long-standing problems.
Understanding the problem
The process has been an awesome learning experience. One of the aspects of the need that has been clarified is the need for systems learning by the community. The initial process called for us to co-develop training that would include systems training. However, the Community Council took it upon themselves to request systems training because they saw a huge need and gap in knowledge about systems that impact their area of interest. For example, the group wanted to hear from local law enforcement since they do play a role in housing and juvenile justice issues. This has led us to re-think the types of baseline training that might be necessary before we get into the specifics.
If you could do it all over again...
A change that we made quite a few months into the project was to create one Community Council and start with trust-building and relationship-building and I would go back and start that way. I think we wasted time (well, not wasted but were not as efficient with time) because we started the Councils separately and held four different meetings on one day with small groups of 2-3 people rather than coming together as one to start and then dividing out. In retrospect, this seems like a better approach because it would provide a more solid base for splitting out. There are many issues that overlap and we could have addressed those first. Another piece of advice I would give is to do more recruiting for the Systems Council early on. The Systems Councils are coming along more slowly and I had thought they would be the easier groups to get together and that schedules would be the greatest barrier. I didn't anticipate the reticence to get involved so I would definitely advise myself to have more of an idea of who I might include and not leave it up to the chairs as much.
One last thought
This process has been a great learning experience. I LOVE the diversity among the group but I also feel like it has slowed down the process a bit and that has me a little concerned. I was hoping to have the groups fully formed and ready for interaction before now but, at the same time, I feel like this work - building trust and relationships and learning - does take more time, which isn't a luxury we always have when doing grant work. I also deeply appreciate the flexibility in changing the way we do things because the process I had on paper didn't fit the needs of the participant and it is helpful to be able to pivot to a process that is more community-driven.