Wagner Area Horizons Team
Report date
February 2017
What has been most instrumental to your progress?
The South Dakota State University through their Sociology Department and their Extension Service Program provided extensive guidance and coaching in constantly seeking clarity of purpose and mid-stream evaluation session. But most importantly in the person of Dr. Davidi Olson and staff assistance SDSU gave support and nurtured our own ideas for change. They did not try to impose their own agenda on our process. Our monthly focus sessions were invaluable in creating and maintaining our commitment as an organization and as individual community members to accomplish our goals. By not insisting that we conform to any specific ideology (but our own) progress was made clear and of course served to be inspiration to continue on with hope and renewed purpose.
We recognized the power of structured dialogue that lead ultimately to action. It was made clear time and time again in our study circle sessions and as we carried out the actions each study circle created that building relationships with other community members is vital to making progress toward achieving our action steps. Simple things like holding alumni picnics to stay in touch with past and present study circle participants contributed immeasurably to holding gains made in trust where none had existed before. Obviously where trust is a rare commodity discussions about anything are very difficult if not impossible. Carrying out actions steps brought from structured conversation moved our community closer to seeing that conciliation regarding especially historical mistrust and conflict is a better strategy for our collective security and creating equitable economic opportunity.
Getting formally incorporated as a 501 C3 nonprofit organization gave needed structure which proved to be very important at broadening our visioning and sharing the load with other community members. By sharing responsibility and increasing our community-wide relationship building capabilities through board member connections with other community organizations such as the Chamber of Commerce, Wagner City Council, and the Yankton Sioux Tribe, to name a few, we made progression toward community change. Being formally organized gave us organizational mission to broker partnerships more strategically. By having a specific reason for moving forward with either another study circle, a trust building retreat, or a focus group on the role of leadership, sanctioned and informed by our organizational committee, built our capacity to be inclusive in terms of regarding diversity in our community as an asset rather than a liability.
Key lessons learned
To try to talk about lessons learned requires understanding a broad definition of our work. The work consisted of bringing people from both white and native communities to focus on race relations and understanding the origins and effects of racism on poverty. One big lesson learned was that poverty and Native culture (held by both communities) to occupy the same space are often times erroneous assumptions. Issues related to characterizations of either and both communities couched in misinformation or stereotyping becomes a big part of the problem of trying unpack the why’s of the conflict in our community. A key lesson then became the need to learn about the nature of poverty as well as the nature of cultural differences. Added to this overall lesson is the need to understand poverty in the context of how it is perceived by both communities.
Overcoming racism in the context of facilitating study circles which aims at understanding racism impact on the relationship building process and community development can not be accomplished through mere conversation. The dialogue must be guided and strategic in nature so that both the process of being in relationship with each other and outcomes take on a more sustainable nature. Both communities owning their part in how they contribute to and how they can take responsibility for addressing these issues lends itself to ensuring more effective community change. Uncovering the soft bigotry of low expectations born of stereotyping and mistrust also must be overcome. Expectations of levels of competency necessarily become a part of the dialogue. This was not readily understood until we had the opportunity during this grant period to apply the necessary resources afforded by the grant to drill down on key issues.
Attempting to improve destructive race relations without understanding the capacity or lack there of to engage in productive conversation will doom any efforts at long term change to failure. Understanding that the lack of the necessary capacity to fully and effectively engage in inclusive community development efforts is key to understanding our broader definition of our work. Thus capacity building has emerged as a necessary step in preparation for the actual dialogue and joint action for change. This required the involvement of outside expertise that is culturally
relevant.
relevant.
Reflections on the community innovation process
The following components, inclusivity, collaboration, and resourcefulness have proven to be important. But the diagram gives no or limited clues as to how to apply these aspects to our experience with community development in a bicultural setting. For example, the identification of the needs of the community is the beginning stage in this theory of change but it doesn’t explain how to arrive at a bicultural need identification process. Also, how to measure or assess an increase in collective understanding is not included. How does a bicultural community generate ideas that are mutually inclusive? How is a bicultural strategic plan accomplished for testing and implementing solutions? How are community innovations discovered and/or created? How is our community’s current capacity or lack thereof determined and by whom? What or how does the plan developed build capacity and how is success determined. How is a “breakthrough” determined and what criteria would be used in a bicultural setting? Equally non-existent in the diagram is how a bicultural community defines “more effective” or “equitable” and how would equitability be assessed?
Progress toward an innovation
Innovations include; creating a viable bicultural organization, art as a tool for community development, a culturally unique Turtle Society, an observer’s pass that augments our deliberative dialogue process by maintaining the integrity of the structured nature of our public discourse in addition to honoring a cultural protocol for engaging in talking circles, and the intent to concile.
The intent to reconcile provides the foundation for all other innovations listed. In 1990 the then Governor of South Dakota, George Mickelson, challenged the citizens of this state to come together for 100 Years for Reconciliation. 2020 will mark a 30 year milestone in the effort to fulfill the late Governor’s proclamation. However, the term reconciliation does not adequately describe or dignify the long standing conflict between Natives and non-Natives in our state. Reconciliation would necessarily identify a state of relationship that presumes conciliation. We’ve arrived at a juncture in our community that has moved us from conflict resulting in a fractured community that is paralyzed by fear and mistrust to a willingness to engage in conciliatory action
The intent to reconcile provides the foundation for all other innovations listed. In 1990 the then Governor of South Dakota, George Mickelson, challenged the citizens of this state to come together for 100 Years for Reconciliation. 2020 will mark a 30 year milestone in the effort to fulfill the late Governor’s proclamation. However, the term reconciliation does not adequately describe or dignify the long standing conflict between Natives and non-Natives in our state. Reconciliation would necessarily identify a state of relationship that presumes conciliation. We’ve arrived at a juncture in our community that has moved us from conflict resulting in a fractured community that is paralyzed by fear and mistrust to a willingness to engage in conciliatory action
What it will take to reach an innovation?
Through a focus group process facilitated by Dr. Olson from SDSU and anecdotal data from group participants, the cultural clash between the top-down authoritarian model of leadership and a native model of “spokes-person” leadership became readily apparent. It was discovered that differences in definition and application of leadership (if unsurmountable) become part of the problem and not the solution. A partnership consisting of multi agencies, tribal, state and others entities would need to be recognized to create a conference that would focus on creating a hybrid, bi-cultural model of leadership across our state. Participants would take away tools such as study guides that would assist local efforts by leadership to facilitate local discourse on leadership issues. No where is this being attempted or offered in our state where a large section of the state is made up of native citizens. Complete application of community agency which is bi-cultural in nature would go a long way toward contribution toward better race relations and therefore gain forward movement to bi-cultural community development.
What's next?
Much of the planning stages to continue this project (bi-cultural leadership conference) have been completed. Planning committee meetings as much as once a month have accomplished identified resources, players, and on-going action steps. Our organization would have to reassume a leadership role to facilitate the conference theme. Reliance made upon planning committee membership to carry out the actual steps would be needed to make a conference a reality. Additional efforts to shore up needed resources (grants, contributions, and other appropriations) would need to be absorbed by present or newly recruited planning committee members. Perhaps a paid-functioning candidate is indicated to carry out the routine contacts and arrangements for such a conference. The current team has already identified a consultant who has the where-with-all to develop the details of such an event. Finally, a new relationship with SDSU and their appropriate staff would need to be seriously examined because of the major role they would play in lending both credibility and expertise to the overall project.
If you could do it all over again...
The advice we would give ourselves would be to develop and practice extraordinary patience. Community engagement is a messy process that requires working with other community members for inclusive development who are not necessarily on the same page. In our case, not only are we challenged by individual perspectives filtered by their own personal experiences and levels of education but also the collective perspectives of two cultures living in an interdependent environment with mixed jurisdictional, legal, social and poverty issues. Much capacity building is obviously needed to create a “safe place” to hold constructive dialogue sessions about common ground issues and arrive at a consensus build visioning. Our future survival is dependent upon our community members to come together in unity about creating a strategic plan for ourselves and the next generation.
One last thought
The Dakotah words Sitomani Ob Washteya Ipi Ichiye means to be in good relationship with all things. This philosophical understanding is at the core of Dakotah traditional thinking and way of life. This thinking is the pathway needed for the continuation of our species and indeed the very survival of our planet-mother earth. Other living relatives who share this beautiful place we regard as home “including all of our animal and plant relatives” like it or not are equally dependent on our getting things right. This community innovation grant greatly assisted our community in achieving a higher standard of humanness and growth in their common responsibility and we are extremely grateful for the gift we received.