Addressing health disparities requires time and collaboration

The group-led facilitations were a crucial part of this class’s learning experience. For the last half of the semester, every week I felt lucky to participate in so many interactive and interesting lesson plans — completely driven by student involvement! This past Tuesday, the last presentation focused on health disparities in the United States and how complex this problem is. Initially, people might think of health as being physically sick or not but, as the class brought up, there are multiple dimensions of health and various factors which influence our quality of life. Health disparity themes include: race, socioeconomic class, gender, sexuality, ability, culture, religion, immigration status, language, education, literacy, and criminal justice involvement. I appreciated the visual handout we were given in class. I had not thought of the four levels ranging from individual lifestyle factors, social and community networks, to general socioeconomic, cultural, and environmental factors.

The handout had provided helpful statistics regarding America’s health disparities, single motherhood, LGBTQ+, children/youth, and refugee communities. After reviewing this document with through a large-group discussion, I liked how we separated into different small groups based off of the four aforementioned populations. Each group had a case study focusing on their specific target population. My group focused on “single mothers” and read a case study about Sylvie Moore: a 29-year-old, woman of color, single mother of three multiracial children. In this profile, Sylvie has a monthly net amount of $157 after all her expenses (e.g. childcare, telephone, gas and utilities, car insurance, and internet services) and fainted at work recently, hitting her head on a concrete counter, but is in the hospital awaiting test results.

As a group, we were given instructions to assess Sylvie’s barriers as well as potential solutions. Some barriers we had speculated included her having a low-paying job which meant, more than likely, she had low benefits like no paid-time-off, or flex time; or not having a strong support system like depending on her family for childcare; and how there are barriers to applying for government assistance programs because hours are only from 9am-5pm and most people are busy working during this time. On the other hand, our group had determined some potential solutions as well. The potential solutions we imagined were having social workers help marginalized folks navigate the system; proposing policies which support paid sick days; and advocating for universal access to quality education.

Unfortunately, Sylvie is an example of millions of U.S. Americans who live paycheck-to-paycheck. This activity and overall lesson has helped me realize that addressing community and social systems requires time, is multi-layered, and complex. At the same time, this group’s lesson provided students, like myself, the opportunity to unpack certain issues around health disparities and propose interventions which we, as social workers, will pursue in the future. It was a great end to an amazing semester!

Final Project: Remote volunteering

For my SW 697 Final Project, I chose the Service Learning assignment. This project was particularly interesting because I did not complete traditional volunteer work. Most people would choose an agency, organization, or some group related to communities and social systems, visit this location, and spend time in-person completing the necessary volunteer hours. My volunteer work is different since every hour was done remotely. The impetus connects back to the beginning of winter term. Originally, I was exploring different options for my current field placement with the SSW critical intersectionality learning community. I spoke with Su Crabb in early January 2018 who put me in touch with Jennifer Spitler, the Executive Director of Big Brothers Big Sisters (BBBS), Washtenaw County.

I reached out to Jennifer and explained my SW 697 Final Project and how students have the option to choose from many different mediums; I specifically expressed my interest in a service learning project. There was one limitation, however, which would affect my service learning: I do not own a car, and BBBS is located in Ypsilanti, approximately 20 minutes from my house in Ann Arbor. Thankfully, Jennifer and I were able to troubleshoot the issue when she proposed I complete volunteer work remotely. Truthfully, I had never considered this alternative and never volunteered in any digital or web-based fashion so I was excited about the possibility to support an agency I respected but from afar.

Shortly after, Jennifer explained her proposal for me which involved re-creating a training manual used for Bigs, Littles, and parent/guardians which consisted of very simple games that had a purpose. Most were about communication, building trust, and resolving conflict. They were completed within the first 3-4 months of a match, when the Big and Little were getting to know each other. My assignment was, essentially, expanding on these topics for three separate age groups (i.e. elementary, middle, and high school) and having more activities to choose from. In an effort to strengthen the Big/Little relationship, I created an Excel spreadsheet consisting of four main themes: 1) Cultural Competency, 2) Problem-Solving, 3) Communication, and 4) Trust-Building. Then, after researching activities for each theme, I wrote the corresponding description, goal, resources needed, activity’s time, and conversation starters for the facilitator.

After completing several hours of remote volunteer work, I compiled a comprehensive list of total activities for the “Elementary” age range. In addition to supporting BBBS Washtenaw County, generating this list will be useful for my future career as a youth and family development coordinator since my work will involve teaching and promoting life skills. It is helpful having this document for future reference. Once I completed this tab, I shared the spreadsheet with Jennifer and continued our email exchange, which counted toward my 20-hour requirement.

Overall, this Final Project was a significant learning experience for me. It helped me realize that service learning is flexible and, given our accessibility to the internet, this expands people’s notions of volunteer work. During this project, I learned about the agency, Remote Year, which facilitates travel and accommodation for people interested in working or volunteering remotely — something relevant to my Final Project which I had not heard of before! Although I did not have transportation to or from Ypsilanti, this did not stop me from extending my support and offering my services to BBBS, Washtenaw County. I learned that being a macro social work practitioner requires adaptability and how practicing social work has evolved over time, and will likely continue to develop. I am fortunate for this experience, for the opportunity to work with a local non-profit agency, and apply community and social systems work outside the classroom.

Comparing local school profiles

This class period was eventful for many reasons. First, the group that presented facilitated an interesting and engaging topic which focused on the school-to-prison pipeline in Washtenaw County. The group presented this topic by splitting the class into small groups using five different high schools in Washtenaw County as case studies. These high schools include: Lincoln Senior High School, Saline High School, Pioneer High School, Pathways to Success Academic Campus, and Ypsilanti High School. Each group was told to check out their designated high school’s website and look over the school’s Code of Conduct/Handbook. Then, the group answered a list of three questions to consider as they prepared to join the larger class discussion. These questions highlighted the classmate’s various perspectives on the school-to-prison pipeline, their assigned school’s demographics, and initial reactions after reading the Code of Conduct/Handbook of the assigned high school.

I remember my group had Pathways to Success Academic Campus. We were given a brief case study about a hypothetical student and asked to troubleshoot this student’s poor attendance. The student, Anthony, was very shy to answer questions in class, his parents were working late shifts and unavailable to support him academically, which resulted in Anthony’s bad attendance. As an AmeriCorps alum, my 10-month service with City Year Chicago (CYC) helped provide me a lot of useful context in the assignment’s scenario. At first, I inquired whether the public high school had any after-school tutoring for low-performing students. My CYC team, for example, was dedicated to provide tutoring for freshmen and sophomore students five days a week for 1.5 hours after school. If I remember correctly, Pathways to Success Academic Campus did not have any AmeriCorps presence based on their website’s information. Our group also was curious about the status of Anthony’s parents, and whether he is experiencing any socioemotional support at home or not. Perhaps there are personal, domestic issues which are manifesting in his (lack of) coursework and overall apathy.

It was fascinating observing the demographic and resource disparities between different high school profiles. Pioneer High School, for example, is a predominantly white secondary school within a relatively affluent city compared to Ypsilanti High School which has a higher minority population within a lower-income city. To provide some context, Pioneer High School’s Code of Conduct mentions the counseling services the school provides for students. It states “counselors are available throughout the school year to work with students on problems both at school and, when appropriate, outside of school. Our school counselors are dedicated to assisting students and helping all of the students here at school. This is their responsibility, and students need to feel comfortable seeking help from their counselors.” Ypsilanti High School, on the other hand, does not mention any counseling services for students. Instead, mentions violations, infractions, and misconduct issues. Just by reviewing each school’s Handbook, I can’t help but notice how disproportionate the access to resources are between Ann Arbor vs. Ypsi. This highlights, once again, structural injustices and the intersection around race and wealth.

Group work, critiques, and CSS

This past Tuesday, April 3, 2018 was when I completed my group presentation focusing on food insecurity on a local, state, and national level. Prior to Tuesday, my group and I had collaborated frequently and demonstrated consistent communication. The week before spring break, Mike Spencer encouraged groups to work together since he would be back in Hawaii conducting research (I am pretty sure). Our group met on Tuesday, February 20 at Gabby’s house where our group members, Mikala, Shay, Gabby, and myself, added resources and links to a shared Google document.

First, we researched different articles relating to food insecurity and food injustice within Washtenaw County, Detroit, and the state of Michigan. We found NPR podcast episodes, New York Times pieces, and Data Detroit articles, among many others. We categorized these references into different sections: sources for students to read prior to class, food insecurity/desert podcasts, demographic information, and visuals/maps. Our group bonded after this first session because we brought breakfast food to Gabby’s house and unofficially titled our group: “The Brunch Club.”

After spring break, our group met for a second time and discussed our future presentation’s activity. I mentioned how during my AmeriCorps service with City Year Chicago, I completed an online poverty simulation called “Play Spent.” One of the objectives was to (in its best effort) accurately represent low-income individuals and the daily choices/sacrifices they have to take. Essentially, the module consists of 30 days with different (and purposefully difficult) choices every day. You, as the “player”, for example, have to choose: whether to pay for health insurance or risk getting back injury at a labor-intensive job; help your son with 5th grade math homework or pay for a tutor; go to your friend’s wedding or skip it because you don’t have enough money, etc. These circumstances are supposed to simulate the anxiety and hardships of living in a low-income setting. Our group chose this activity since it involved food insecurity, given the “player’s” limited finances from the beginning.

The next time we met as a group, we made final edits to our PowerPoint, printed out facilitator’s notes, and did a run-through of the presentation. We designated certain slides per group member and wrote down additional notes to bring up during the presentation. Once we met this past Tuesday, I felt confident about the material and thought everything would run smoothly. After splitting up into different groups, we regathered as a classroom and had a large group discussion. To my surprise, there was a rich, stimulating, and productive conversation regarding the poverty simulation activity.

In fact, the criticisms highlighted why the discussion was so beneficial for everyone. Students had raised concerns and expressed how “Play Spent” did not accurately represent the targeted population’s lifestyle; that creating a game trivialized a person’s real life experiences; and that many, many positionalities were not taken into account when completing the activity (e.g. what about doing the simulation from a queer, low-income, black trans female perspective?) Although the simulation was not intended to raise so many questions, our group was pleasantly surprised at the overall discussion. In my opinion, the presentation truly connected with our class title: social work practice with communities and social systems.

“The System” and addressing numbness

This week I watched the “South Central Farm” YouTube video as the main resource for my blog post. After watching the video, I feel disheartened and almost numb. Part of focusing on communities and social systems, particularly in the United States, in my opinion, means coming to terms and realizing how powerful structural oppression is. The South Central Los Angeles community garden and farm was a safe space for many individuals and families from across different racial and socioeconomic backgrounds. Low-income families, farm workers, Latinos, whites, and other populations were able to work together in one communal setting. The community garden promoted healthy living on many levels: it gave people a sense of purpose, that members were collectively building a community; it allowed families to grow food for themselves which made them feel empowered; and it helped members develop a better understanding of nutrition and organic food production.

The reason why I am disheartened, however, is because this oasis of community – and I would argue, harmony—was disrupted and ultimately taken away by the Annenberg Foundation which complied with local government regulation. The members were forcibly removed from THEIR own community garden. What the hell?! That’s like someone barging into your house, uninvited, and telling you to exit your own house otherwise you would face legal consequences. What I don’t remember seeing in the video is the rationale for the property being bulldozed and removing the “South Central Farm” members. When systemic injustices like this occur, my immediate response is not anger; it’s not frustration.. it’s feeling hopeless and numb, to a certain extent. Being in graduate school has undoubtedly raised my awareness of structural oppression and how “messed up the system is.” There is an unequal distribution of power, resources, and the more I realize it: we do not live in a democracy.. have we ever lived in a democracy, though??

Graduate school at the U-M School of Social Work means reflecting on your experiences and how your identity informs social work practice. When I mention how numb and sometimes hopeless I feel, part of me thinks that is due to my personality while another part attributes those reactions to my salient identity. I am a white-passing male from a middle-class background. Of course, I have faced personal hardships in my life but I would not correlate those challenges to structural discrimination. So, does my identity influence my lack of rage? Should I even feel a certain way about this? As a future macro social work practitioner, I am dedicated to service and motivated to address global poverty in Latin America. I know my skill sets and I hope to use my privilege as a way of leveraging resources to advocate for marginalized populations.

This video was significant to me because it highlighted systemic injustices and, although I am still processing other people’s traumas, I know that I joined this program for a reason. Every one of us has the capacity to promote social justice in an impactful way. I won’t be able to solve structural oppression, but I will use my abilities to help positively influence someone’s life in an effort to promote social change both domestic and abroad.

“Gentrification” group & class critique

Once again, I liked the topic that the group presented on Tuesday, March 20^th. It was regarding gentrification which, for many School of Social Work students, is a hot topic and people may have already had personal experience dealing with this in previous job settings. First, we started off doing a Mind Map as a large-group activity. The group facilitators passed around markers for everyone to take so that students could individually contribute and write on the three flip charts that were posted on the room’s back wall. The instructions were simple: “write whatever comes to mind when you think of the word ‘gentrification.’” At first, people were a little hesitant and shy; maybe they didn’t want to come across as offensive or insensitive? I remember going forward and writing the words “hipster” and “coffee shops/cafes” since, genuinely, these were the first words that came to mind when I thought of gentrification. I think of young, white, presumably middle-class, artsy folks (i.e. hipsters) in the Detroit neighborhood, Midtown, and how they frequent coffee shops or like to drink craft beers. Of course, this is a huge generalization, but then again, this activity welcomes those kinds of initial thoughts.

Eventually, other people wrote down more higher-level concepts like “development”, “displacement”, “history”, “ignorance”. Then, one student drew a line from “ignorance” to “millennials” which many people agreed with due to their body language. Next, we went back to our tables (which were divided by people’s Group Projects) and reviewed the different frameworks which the “gentrification” group briefly touched on: 1) Public Health, 2) Government/Housing Policy, 3) Data Tech, and 4) Higher Education. Later, we discussed gentrification and its application to our lives and to the field of social work. One common question I kept thinking about was: how do you promote development without gentrifying and displacing minorities/communities of color? Can they ever be mutually exclusive? Also, what would socially conscious development look like and would companies ever adopt a social work-friendly approach?

Overall, the class gave positive feedback to the group that presented. I did think of some suggestions for the next time. For example, it might be a good idea for facilitators to probe the larger groups by asking more specific follow-up questions. My experience is when groups are asked broad, general questions they don’t really know where to start and are self-conscious to say something that the entire class thinks is obvious (again, this is just my take on it). Another suggestion would be that instead of doing the Mind Map activity with everyone standing as one large group, I think it’d be better if there were two flip charts on one side of the wall (“Pros” vs. “Cons”) and other flip charts which had general “gentrification” themes like “Development” or “Displacement” spread out across the room. Again, in my experience, people are much more willing to talk when they can walk around, think for a second, and write down their response. When everyone’s in a large group, people are more timid because they might feel vulnerable to share something in front of everyone; or might feel judged if they do.

One final thought that Mike brought up, which I liked, is “why did people feel so vulnerable when participating in a large group activity?” Is it due to social pressure? Anxiety? Why doesn’t SSW foster risk-taking? These are just some questions to consider in the meanwhile, before next week’s group presentation.

A (very) tough balance

The first group presentation presented earlier today, Tuesday, March 13, and I think most of the class found their topic very interesting: ethical dilemmas in fundraising. As macro social work practitioners, not all, but many of us, will work in a nonprofit setting – if we haven’t already had prior experience in this environment. The group including classmates, Genna, Gabriella, Laura, and Hannah, first gave personal anecdotes about complications (more specifically microaggressions) from donors. Then, the class was split into four separate groups and each facilitator helped lead the discussion for each group with two total ethical dilemmas written on the projector.

Gabriella led our group conversation about the first ethical dilemma scenario: an LGBTQ after-school program/organization which has been in the “red zone” for funding the last two years is in desperate need of fundraising. One donor can help revitalize the program with a very substantial gift; however, this donor is part of a notorious, right-wing, anti-LGBTQ organization. The question poses whether the executive director (ED), or board chair, should accept the money or not? Part of me thinks that the ED should accept the donation regardless of the donor’s bigoted political views. Another classmate in our group said that accepting a gift from this negative stakeholder could actually work against the LGBTQ organization and other smaller, grassroots funders and donors could pull out thinking “I don’t want to be associated with your group if you support that donor’s cause.”

One theme I consistently kept noticing was: how much are small nonprofit administrators – and their staff – willing to compromise for the sake of continuing their organization? Are they willing to give up part of their organization’s integrity, but by doing so, still keep the nonprofit alive? If I take a step back, it’s easier for me, as a white-passing, heterosexual, middle class, able-bodied, male to take an objective stance on these ethical dilemmas and scenarios – primarily because I am not part of the disadvantaged communities that the nonprofit works with. Maybe if I were gay or a trans female, I would have a different buy-in, investment, and overall relationship with the LGBTQ organization because the services and programs are directed toward me. But since I do not possess these positionalities, it seems like it’s easier to say “screw it, let’s take the money because, you know what, in the end we’ll still have our organization.” Unfortunately, fundraising isn’t that easy and, frankly, my privileged identity is telling me this is a no-brainer when really.. it’s not.

The group posted one reading which highlighted some unethical examples EDs or other nonprofit administrators might pursue based on temptation and overcompensation. Some examples include: it’s dishonest to tell you’re involved in a certain kind of program even if you’re not; it lacks integrity to take on a program area or a piece of work just because someone offered to fund it; and how it’s unprincipled to keep two sets of books (one for the public and a truer accounting that remains internal for the organization). I personally haven’t had any exposure to such small nonprofit organizations but I imagine these circumstances present themselves especially when so much funding is available. Sadly, with money comes power, and donors can have a lot of say in how your organization carries out it’s mission and vision. It seems like nonprofit administrators need to find a (very) tough balance of authentically fundraising but never losing sight of their organization’s integrity. Because, in the end, money can’t directly produce social change. Only we can.

SLP: theory into practice

Ever since my undergraduate studies at Beloit College, I have been interested in tutoring and mentorship — particularly with children & youth (ages 12-18). After graduating in 2013, I joined the AmeriCorps program called City Year Chicago where I tutored twelve different Latino youth in 9th grade English for 10 months. My service took place at a public high school on the city’s Northwest side. I realized I liked this type of service work and decided to continue community development overseas by serving with the Peace Corps in rural Ecuador. During my two years, I organized several community-based projects but also played a consistent mentorship and tutoring role for a small children & youth group (ages 9-13). I mentored students in behavioral management and tutored them with English homework. My service was both my introduction and my outlet to global social work, and mentoring and tutoring were significant methods for promoting social change on a domestic and international level.

For my Final Project, I have decided to volunteer 20 hours with the non-profit organization, Big Brothers Big Sisters (BBBS) of Washtenaw County. Since starting graduate school at the School of Social Work, I have not had any opportunity to complete volunteer work nor dedicate my time to service. When our SW 697 class was reviewing the Final Project assignment objectives and tasks the first week, I knew instantly that I wanted to participate in a service learning project (SLP) more than all the other options. My current field placement is with the SSW Critical Intersectionality Learning Community (CILC). Earlier this semester, I spoke with Su Crabb, my Fall term Field Seminar instructor, who proposed the idea that I facilitate an intersectionality training for the adult mentors at BBBS. Due to time constraints, I was unable to connect my field placement with the organization. On the other hand, I was able to start a conversation with the BBBS Executive Director, Jennifer, who is open to my future involvement.

Typically, for BBBS, the commitment for Bigs is to be paired with a Little for one year. Although I am unable to dedicate one year to a Little, I believe I can still volunteer and complete service learning to some capacity before the winter term ends. There are a few SSW students who are currently working at BBBS as part of their field placement. One friend, Jonathan, is doing evaluation work and I would be open to helping him. I also believe, after talking in-person with Jennifer, I might have the opportunity to shadow a Big and their Little and practice mentoring and tutoring with youth since, ultimately, that is a primary reason for choosing BBBS for my Final Project.

My next steps include reaching out to Jennifer again and determining how I can be most effective for 20 hours this term (e.g. which days to work, with which Big/Little, possible evaluation work, etc.). Ideally, I would like to start my service hours within the next two to three weeks; definitely by the end of March. Ultimately, I am very excited for this opportunity and to apply what I learned about communities and social systems through mentoring and tutoring with BBBS of Washtenaw County. It’s looking like this SLP is my chance to start putting theory into practice.

A call for compassion

This week’s focus on Social, Economic, and Sustainable Development included very interesting and engaging reading materials relating to different community-based programs. Wernick’s article on LGBTQQ youth using participatory action research (PAR) and theater to effect social change was fascinating since it promoted social justice through the arts which, truthfully, I had never heard of before. I actually learned about PAR earlier this semester through my current field placement: the Critical Intersectionality Learning Community (CILC). One of my field instructors, Dr. Gant, is a SSW professor and suggested I organize a photovoice project which is one way to facilitate PAR. I never ended up organizing this project due to time constraints, but I did learn a lot about how these interventions are a great way to raise awareness, generate dialogue, and encourage local policy change.

Wernick’s article connected well with the Matrix Theater video which included teenagers from Detroit participating in acting and screenplay writing. Amy Thomas, the Theater’s Director of Education, had mentioned how the organization’s mission is to “provide access to theater in all of its forms” which is precisely what they’re doing. From my understanding, although there is overlap between Wernick’s piece and the Matrix Theater video, it seems that using PAR has an agenda toward decision-making and local change whereas the Theater is not as political. Both interventions, however, provide unique spaces for disadvantaged youth to feel empowered, boost self-esteem, and build community.

In addition, watching the Theater video and reading the article related to a quote from the Grace Lee Boggs video. The interviewer asked “what can I do that’s practical? How can I make the difference that Grace Lee Boggs is talking about?” and she responded by saying “you can start by doing something local.” Earlier in the video, she had discussed how community gardens have great potential to bring people together, give them a sense of purpose, and to have youth feel connected with the earth. She also mentioned how change starts with people initiating conversations with others (about social change) and taking action. I admire Boggs since she challenges us to question traditional systems and to really think critically about change-making.

The next theme I came across was program development supporting homeless populations. I particularly liked watching the Detroit Rescue Mission Ministries (DRMM) video especially since I collaborated with them during last semester’s Community Profile Project for SW 512! I love when learning about one experience or reading, in this case DRMM, occurs in one setting then reappears in another setting. Last October, another SSW student and I went to the DRMM office in Detroit and spoke with the Chief Operating Officer, Barbara Willis, as well as the Director of Media Relations and Community Outreach, Paschal Eze. They explained their service delivery system which includes: the emergency shelter, treatment center (e.g. detox & treatment, mental health services, legal services), transitional housing, post-transitional housing, and permanent housing.

The ABC Channel 7 news video highlighted the two-year transitional housing. In my opinion, the DRMM housing requirements seem very fair (i.e. must have a job, must have a family, kids must go to school, etc.) which, if the house is still in good condition after two years, they can have with a $1 down payment. I admire DRMM’s work since they promote compassionate social justice – the video mentioned 29 different families were provided housing whose lives are being positively impacted! Lastly, this video connected well with the “Organizing in Detroit Soup Kitchens” article since Markus stated “progress is possible – if organizers and organization leaders work strategically, courageously, and lovingly.” The more and more I think about it: I truly believe social justice requires compassion.

Who gets to ‘claim’ community change?

This week’s articles focused on the roles coalitions play in community organizing and community-building. Based off the first article, coalitions typically involve both professional and grassroots organizing. Truthfully, I thought coalitions were primarily grassroots, nonprofit organizations; in addition, I’ve never heard of Tyson, Oscar Mayer, and JBS Swift & Co. forming a meat and poultry “coalition”. From my understanding, coalitions have a social justice element or foundation behind the work they promote. For this reason, I don’t believe the media would frame large companies as part of a broader coalition towards advancing their for-profit goals and objectives since they are not directly promoting social change. I am familiar with a coalition in the Chicago area called the Illinois Coalition for Immigration and Refugee Rights (ICIRR). Although this collective organization is not directly tied with for-profit businesses, they do collaborate with the state-level government for funding. This would be categorized as a professional coalition which gains support from its grassroots members.

I also enjoyed the article regarding multiple identities and coalition building. One main point which stood out to me was how “people can and do identify with more than one community”. This statement made me think of my current School of Social Work field placement with the Critical Intersectionality Learning Community (CILC). I work mostly with two faculty members: Dr. Beth Glover Reed and Dr. Larry Gant. CILC is responsible for advancing knowledge development on intersectional themes, like producing scholarly articles or implementing academic curriculums and/or courses. Since I am concentrating in Community Organization/Communities & Social Systems, my main learning objective with field placement is, ideally, organizing a time bank initiative within the SSW. Although this initiative is still in the preliminary stages, the article relates to CILC’s values like: engaging people in dialogue around intersectionalities as well as coalition-building for social change.

Time banks are a skill-sharing community development model where participants use time as currency and help receive or offer voluntary services to other participants. I believe they are a great way for people to collaborate with one another, learn about each other’s multiple identities, build relationships with people who are different than you, and ultimately build community. Time banks are an example of alternative, anti-capitalist institutional structures which are appealing since every skill that’s shared holds equal value; this means someone who helps with automobile maintenance earns the same time bank credit as someone who babysits. This is part of why it’s unconventional and radical!

The WXYZ video highlighting Detroit’s Northwest Activities Center is an example where a large corporation helps fund a community resource but not necessarily build or strengthen a coalition. In this case, Fifth-Third Bank invested roughly $1.5 million in new space. In my opinion, there are a few benefits and drawbacks regarding this development. Some benefits are that the space provides community members with programs (e.g. dance classes, yoga) and resources (e.g. basketball courts). On the other hand, some drawbacks include how the company did not seem to partner with any grassroots organization or involve local stakeholders in the process – or, at least, this wasn’t mentioned in the video. Also, it seems like Fifth-Third Bank just donated a (relatively small compared to their overall budget) donation and didn’t give coalitions a chance to build relationships, fundraise, or mobilize community members – the company’s development skipped all those steps which could have been very valuable. Overall, I believe corporations have the potential promote social change through funding but must do so in an ethical, socially just way.