Brief Arrangements or Actual Changes: How to Implement Meaningful Community Service
In today’s day and age, employers and schools scour resumes and applications for evidence of contributions to promoting societal welfare. Despite the quest for such service, the extent to which one has donated their time and energy is hardly ever challenged. What we consider as ‘good’ community service is typically just brief periods of charitable service to discounted communities. This work is not entirely pointless, but it does not have long standing ramifications on the aforementioned groups. Before I began volunteering with the Francisco Homes, experiences in high school led me to believe that community service simply involves a transactional, charitable donation of time or resources, with little or no further research or resounding impacts that contribute to solving larger societal issues. Now, I acknowledge that good service involves a willingness to learn from other’s experiences and the historical contexts of the injustices they faced, as this grants them the platform and encouragement they need to dismantle corrupt systems.
For too long, I maintained the popular misconception that the act of completing a task to benefit a community will provide them with the resources they need in order to succeed. At my high school, my friends and I often volunteered at a local food pantry. Under the supervision of an adult, we diligently stocked shelves, inspected expiration dates, and sorted new shipments. It was simple work, but provided us with a sense of satisfaction at delivering aid to our communities. To be fair, we were making a difference — just not as efficiently as we assumed. According to Keith Morton’s “The Irony of Service: Charity, Project, and Social Change in Service-Learning”, these donations of time fall into the category of charity. Despite its beneficial short term results, charity is ultimately pretty insignificant. They state, “[p]lanning and delivery of services are limited and fragmentary, the decision making process is closed, and little, if any, attempt is made to understand or effect the structural causes of the problem” (Morton 121). While serving at the food pantry, I didn’t do any research on those within my communities who were struggling with obtaining food. The issue of food insecurity was invisible, distanced, and I felt no connection to the community I was serving. As a result, I never considered taking any action to determine the root causes of the issue at hand, nor did it ever cross my mind that I could ever fulfill such a seemingly daunting task. The basic argument in favor of charity asserts that this is the most feasible expenditure of time and resources for those contributing to the cause. It’s a valid argument, as everyone has their own jobs and responsibilities to prioritize. Regardless, I urge those dedicating their time to service to search for meaningful ways to help others, not taking the most obvious solution. How much are you willing to sacrifice to see permanent change enacted in your community?
By falling victim to the simplistic, temporary solution of charity, we do not address the root issues at hand, nor do we provide these communities with ample resources in order to support themselves. Morton lists social change as the most influential and successful form of service, stating, “[s]ocial change…models typically focus on the process: building relationships among or within stakeholder groups, and creating a learning environment that continually peels away the layers of the onion called ‘root causes’” (123). Social change actually has repercussions that span beyond the temporary amount of time you donate to the cause. Additionally, social change has the critical potential to form a collaboration between the volunteers and undermined communities: a beneficial binding in which those whose voices have been diminished can be supported in order to speak out. By having their stories amplified through the support of volunteers, these vital members of society can regain their own voice and strength after being stifled by oppressive systems. Even an action as simple as this collaboration can increase a sense of self-efficacy and encourage oppressed communities to speak out against the systems which keep them confined. Los Angeles is deeply affected by homelessness, mass incarceration, and lacks of educational access to lower income communities: all forming marginalization that ostracize members of these groups from the rest of society. The structural issues that underscore these communities will not go away on their own, and extensive attention is necessary to enact an effective resolution.
Instead of indirect charity work, service should be redirected toward direct social change, which can actually have a resounding impact on the community. Social change includes several critical elements that counter the and consequently reinforcing stigmas and hierarchies evident in charity work. For instance, we can utilize radical learning in order to explore the history of the injustices impairing these marginalized groups. By doing so, we free them from any stereotypes or prejudices we may have previously held. In “Dispositions: Who We Are Called to Be as Community Engaged Learners,” David M. Donahue and Star Plaxton-Moore introduce the concept of cultural humility. They describe this terminology as, “…honoring the diversity of values, beliefs, experiences, and traditions that make up various cultures by learning from direct interactions…while also recognizing the inherent limitations of our capacities…” (Donahue and Moore 45). Participation in radical learning allows these community members to speak openly about the systemic factors that play into their portrayals, guided by the knowledge that an audience of supportive volunteers will be there to listen. Merely lending an ear and attention to these causes allows volunteers to become educated on topics they previously may not have known. Consequently, they hear perspectives they may not otherwise have been privy to, while simultaneously comprehending that this diversion of empathy will never fully encapsulate the experience these people are living through.
Formerly incarcerated members of society released on parole suffer the effects of a corrupt system that failed them and continues to keep them trapped in a perpetuating cycle of detention. In his article “The History of Mass Incarceration,” James Cullen writes, “[t]he prison population began to grow in the 1970s, when politicians from both parties used fear and thinly veiled racial rhetoric to push increasingly punitive policies. Nixon started this trend, declaring a “war on drugs” and justifying it with speeches about being ‘tough on crime.’” (Cullen). Learning about these issues and supporting these valuable members of society allows them to gain the platforms they need in order to speak out against the systems that confine them. Additionally, parole is not set up for them to succeed. For example, in her article “Revoked,” Allison Frankel states, “people must comply with an array of wide-ranging, sometimes vague, and hard-to-follow rules, including rules requiring them to pay steep fines and fees, attend frequent meetings, abstain from drugs and alcohol, and report any time they change housing or employment. People must follow these rules for a long period of time” (Frankel). Fortunately, organizations such as The Francisco Homes provide a safe environment for those released from prison to successfully reintegrate into society and avoid the far too easy to violate parole laws. The intense manners of these laws and the unsustainable longevity makes it nearly impossible for those released on parole to get back on their feet and avoid becoming reincarcerated without outside assistance. But what about those who are not fortunate enough to be part of such a home? They remain trapped in a system that sets them up for failure.
A general comprehension of the truths that these communities battle allows them to become empowered from the support, leading to them being able to take active action and disrupt corrupt power systems. Donahue and Plaxton-Moore state, “…you need to be open to listening to the narratives of the people you are interacting with in the community. What you may find is that people live and think differently than you, and that their worldviews are rooted in their life experiences. They will likely share perspectives you’ve never considered or stories that challenge the way you think the world works” (37). At the Francisco Homes, challenging the stigmas around formerly incarcerated members allows them to successfully reintegrate into society, where they can actively protest against the systems that debhabilitated them. As a result of popular media and general biases, they suffer from detrimental stereotypes. However, by speaking to these men in writing workshops and simply conversing with them at general meetings, I learned about their stories, personalities, and perspectives. These people weren’t dangerous and were of no threat to anyone. Society wants us to fear these men, when, in reality, they are among the strongest, most courageous, and most intelligent of our population. When we destigmatize, we grant them the power and encouragement to commit to social change. Granting these men the power to control their fate, free of harmful generalizations, allows them to speak out against the systems that maimed them and stole precious years of their youth and livelihood. This can only be achieved through working up to social change, not brief rounds of charitable work.
Charity, despite its relatively minor contributions in the short run, does not often evoke the cultural humility and critical thinking required in order to enact change. Instead, conducting research, acknowledging historical contexts, and challenging preconceived notions are rooted in creating lasting change. These actions elevate the voices of those in marginalized communities, allowing them to speak out against the systems that reduce them to stereotypical representations. It will take an immense amount of structural reformation in order to bring justice to those wronged by corrupt systems, and this task can seem daunting; however, by incorporating direct service instead of temporary charitable acts, a palpable difference can be established.
