Jim Diers: Disrupting the relationship between citizens and state

Jim Diers has been involved in asset-based community development (ABCD) since the 1970s. He’s seen how places can be transformed by giving communities the freedom to take control and make the most of their assets. Here he talks to New Start about the power of community-building and how the time is now ripe for a changed dynamic between citizens and the state.

A former community organizer, you switched sides and worked as the first director of Seattle’s department for neighbourhood in the 80s where you set about changing the relationship between government and people. What did you learn from switching sides?
When I came to the department of Neighbourhoods in Seattle in 1988 I realised there had to be a different way of organising people. I couldn’t just organise things by government. I wanted to work out how we can start seeing real value in active citizens, how we could recognise all the resources communities can bring and all the things we could do together.  One of the first things we did was to set up a Neighbourhood Matching Fund programme. The idea was to meet people half way, to invite communities to ask for funds for a local project, and give those funds if the community matched them in terms of voluntary labour and time. It was very controversial but 25 years on it has now funded more than 3000 projects and we’ve seen amazing things come from communities that never would have come from a bureaucratic institution.

There’s been huge change in Seattle in the last 35 years to get people to think about what they could do for themselves, and to reach beyond the usual suspects and take down some of the barriers within government. In Seattle now we have a different kind of democracy: it’s not something you do once or twice a year to give your power away but it’s something you do every day and it’s how you interact with your neighbours. It’s a much deeper democracy.

There are two paths to addressing community needs, one is through service delivery and the other is through community building. We’ve had more service delivery and less community building. This crisis creates the opportunity to change that to show people they have the resources and power to make change happen in their local areas.

How did you get the bureaucracies in Seattle to change?
It’s really tough and ongoing and it’s a paradigm shift for communities too. Communities think that it’s their job to just pay their taxes and the government’s job to take care of them and we need to change that. I always had this opinion of bureaucrats but when I got to government I realised there are really good people with legitimate concerns. When we set up the Matching Fund I said to the head of the parks department, “This is great, I know people will want to use this to do parks projects.” And she said: “No, we don’t want people messing with our parks.” Her concerns were legitimate ones and are the same concerns that stop projects all over the world, about liability, health and safety, the union agreement, who will maintain the project. But people are always looking at the downside and saying ‘No’ rather than working out how we can cut through that and say ‘Yes’. We need to think about the systems needed to say yes and make a cultural shift so that it’s in the interest of the staff to do it.

And it’s also about getting people in the bureaucracy to take off their work hats and think of themselves as community members. People talk of community like it’s some ‘other’ but we all should be part of it. Everyone needs democracy and community and the weakest communities are often the most affluent ones where people think they don’t need it. Professionals and government play very important roles and my passion is how do you get the best of both, how do you find the balance between what government does best and what community does best.

Why have institutions got so bad at helping build communities?
All the systems we set up are in silos and that’s a strength in some ways. They have that expertise and laser-like focus so that things don’t fall through the cracks. Every institution is organized that way – whether it’s government, university or not-for-profit – and it makes it really difficult for them to work with communities. We need to move beyond that and focus in a more place-based way and work across institutions.

Secondly, institutions tend to focus on needs rather than assets because professionals want to use their expertise, and for many things – transport planning for example – this is important. But it’s also important to recognise the value of citizen engagement if it’s done right. There is real knowledge at the community level that is very different to the knowledge you get in institutions. If you combine the two you get the best possible outcomes. Institutions need to move beyond paying lip service to community consultation and instead engage fully. Consultations put so many people off community involvement as they don’t see any relationship between that and the results.

Thirdly, the fundamental difference between citizen participation and community empowerment is that in participation the citizens are involved in the institution’s priorities where the institution still has all the power, whereas in empowerment it’s about helping the communities to run their own initiative and have their own power.

Institutions are the same everywhere whether it’s China, Sweden or the US. They all have the same expert mentality and the same silos and we need to think about how we get more democratic and see active citizens as a strength not as a problem.

The Fremont troll is a public sculpture in Seattle built in an underpass that had become a dumping ground. It was one of the first projects funded by the city’s Neighbourhood Matching Fund and has since become a tourist attraction.

How does asset-based community development (ABCD) work?
ABCD is about uncovering and using the strengths within a community. Often people start the process by mapping their assets – the skills of local people, the local community associations etc – but that’s just the start. I can’t tell you how many times people show me these beautiful maps they made and I ask, “What did you do with it?” And they say, “We made a map”. The point is you make a map and the map helps you make change. It’s not just about mobilising assets but doing it in a way that is driven by the community, to the community’s agenda. It’s about moving beyond silo thinking to focus on whole places, and moving from a process that starts with needs to one that starts with strengths, and from top-down to community driven.

It’s absolutely not about seeing the community as having this vast reservoir of resources so that we can get them to do as volunteers what we used to pay staff to do. We need to recognise there is a role for professionals and you don’t want community people to come in and do what they were doing. But many times the communities do things in a better way, a different way, in a way that’s more holistic and more culturally appropriate and particular to place.

How does ABCD compare to other types of community development?
It’s a frustration of mine because there have become two different camps. There’s one camp that I still really believe in, that is organising people in order to hold institutions accountable, organising for social justice. What I’ve learned over time is that organising people around their strengths – the asset-based approach – is probably a better way to get a lot more people engaged and build a stronger community so when the time comes you’re stronger for the fight. But both are political. If you just take an ABCD approach it can almost feel right wing – it’s about counting your blessings, pulling yourself up by your bootstraps. That’s not what most people mean by it but it can be limiting. There are lots of community assets that have been ripped off and not everyone has glasses half full and so it’s also got to be about a fight for justice. If you combine those two approaches you get the best possible outcome. But people tend to be doctrinaire and take one.

What’s the key to getting people to be more involved in their local areas?
1. Have fun. Too much of our work is based around meetings. I say, “Why have a meeting when you can have a party?”

2. Start where people are. Start with their street and their language and their networks. It’s not about getting people into our networks or getting them to speak our language. It’s also about starting with their passions. If we want to get them engaged start with a question, such as, “What is your vision for your local area?”

3. Remember, every duck responds to a different call. Some people respond to the volunteer call and others to the social call.

4. Get results. Involve them in issues and projects that are immediate and concrete.

5. Don’t sit on your assets. Every single person has incredible strengths – gifts of the heart, the head and hands. We label people by what they don’t have rather than what they do – e.g. homeless, non-English speaking etc.

6. Lead by stepping back. Often we have too many leaders. We need to think about collective leadership and shared leadership.

7. Recognise and celebrate contributions.

8. Share stories – we don’t share stories of success enough. Some of Seattle’s stories are here.

• Jim Diers is a faculty members of the Asset-based Community Development Institute and has written a book about building community the Seattle way