Online Articles

Regenerating Community: The Recovery of a Space for Citizens
May 29, 2003

John L. McKnight, Professor of Communication Studies - Northwest University
Founder and Co-Director of the
Asset Based Community Development Institute Website

Introduction to "Building Communities from the Inside Out: A Path Toward Finding and Mobilizing a Community's Assets"

John P. Kretzmann and
John L. McKnight

Creating and Sustaining

Community Bridges Out of Poverty

Integrated Continuum of Support Model

Concept Paper by Dave Goger

Integrated Continuum of Support is a practical model for local communities to decrease poverty by empowering community groups and natural support systems to actively participate with professional and government social services in helping individuals and families transition from financial, social and emotional dependency to family sustainability and economic self-sufficiency. 

The model is built on the research that transition out of poverty involves: 1) individuals and/or the family unit making consistent healthy choices, 2) individuals and/or families having access to viable and realistic opportunities, and 3) individuals and/or families being connected to an appropriate level of support (what Robert Putnam in Bowling Alone, his seminal book on social capital, calls "bridging capital").

Integrated Continuum of Support is just a part, but a vital part, of a comprehensive poverty reduction strategy.  It is designed to work in tandem with economic development and government social services programs.  Its goal is incorporate and to integrate the voluntary sector of the community as a strategic partner with both the government and business sector to reduce poverty in the community.

This model is constructed of five interlocking principles:

1.      There are multiple ways and multiple means to provide meaningful support; however, maximum effectiveness occurs when a community has a systemic, integrated model of support.

Integrated Continuum of Support is designed to create and sustain an integrated infrastructure/network of support.  This is more than an information and referral network.  It is a practical approach to cultivate bridging capital by enabling all agencies, organizations, partners and stakeholders to actively participate in support activities.  This participation can be at various levels of support, with various types of relationships, and at various level of commitment.  Like an Amish barn raising, it exemplifies the idea that all can contribute something toward a common end, provided one knows where and when to "show up."

Additionally, this integrated infrastructure/network model envisions the concept of "ONE DOOR, ANY DOOR".  This idea is that an individual can get connected to support through any access point. This entails a high degree of collaboration and coordination and seeks to minimize the number of doorways a person needs in order access necessary support.

2.       All aspects of the life of the community (business, education, social services agencies, voluntary and faith-based groups, and local government) have a vested interest in promoting safe and sustainable families within the community.

3.     All voices need to be heard, especially those who are receiving support.  They are in the best position at determine what positive support looks like.

4.      Leadership, community education, and skilled coordination are essential for long range success.

5.      The creative resources to meet the diverse community’s needs are already present in the community.  Tapping into these resources, however, requires visionary and creative thinking, leadership, and a strong commitment to collaboration.

THE FOUNDATION

The foundation of Integrated Continuum of Support begins with the recognition that everyone, at times, experiences struggles in various aspects of life, whether this is in personal or financial crisis, lack of basic necessities, unresolved conflicts, emotional or physical challenges, or crisis in their social or spiritual lives.  While many individuals already have significant positive support systems to assist in their crisis, there are more and more families and individual who have inadequate support systems.  They have no means to access resources to resolve or manage these challenges.   Many find themselves experiencing the phenomenon of "cascading crises" where one "can’t stop bad things from happening."

The model seeks to address this need by creating the framework and infrastructure of government/community collaboratives to reduce poverty and dependency in both the areas of social or "soft" support and tangible or "hard" support. Soft supports are the intangible types of support such as mutual respect, encouragement, education, coaching and counseling. Hard supports are the tangible elements of support such as income support, housing, health care, child care, transportation, etc.

The model addresses "soft" support by embracing a concept called "Overlapping Levels of Social Support".  It addresses "hard" support through a strategy called "Creative Connections". In both areas, the goal is to establish a practical community-wide strategy which can be implemented across various agencies, organizations and groups.

Overlapping Levels of Social Support

This concept of overlapping levels of social support is first a paradigm shift in the conventional understanding of what helps people and what help is available to people. It is a move away from the paradigm that only specialized professionals can help those with certain types of challenges. It is also a shift away from the misconception that once someone is referred to a "professional" that person is going to receive all the help that they need.  

Those who are in the helping professions recognize that there are many gaps in providing support for clients within the existing social service delivery system.  Social workers, clinicians, and case managers frequently look for the natural support systems for clients.  Often all they find are over-stressed and fragmented families and many of their clients don't even have this.  More unfortunately, however, is the fact that some time the professionals who deal with this frustration will forego a holistic approach to helping people.  They lose the ability to see the individual in front of them and focus on "their program."  Hence, the person can be stuck in an oppressive system of seeking out piecemeal support from fragmented agencies.

Overlapping levels of support is a way of viewing social support from a holistic perspective and it is a deliberate attempt to overcome the problem of fragmentation (not my client, not eligible, not my responsibility).  It envisions support along an overlapping continuum with some basic support needed for all and more skilled support needed to some.  It assumes that the basic level of support, i.e. mutual respect and encouragement is provided to all, by all, at all times, and at all places.  And, it assumes that this basic level of support continues whether that person is or isn't "your client".  It recognizes that even when an individual needs specialized professional help, that help is most effective because it is in concert with other supports such as an encouraging family member or supportive pastor.  All the various supports for an individual or a family are working together and not in isolation or in a fragmented fashion.  (The assumption is that the individual receiving the help maintains the control over the type of support they receive and to whom they share information.)

Another key element in overlapping levels of support is the recognition of the two qualitative types of social supports: 1) professional support, and 2) relational support.  Professional support is the support received by public or private employees whose job it is to provide help and support to those in need.  Generically, this can be called the "social service sector" and it is provided because it’s part of the job. 

Relational support grows out of a sense of belonging to a group or a community and is grounded on the idea of relationship.  Help is provided because the individual is seen as a member of a group.  The groups are as broad and varied as the types of relationships that exist in our society.  It may entail being a member of the family, a member of a support group, a member of the church, one of God’s children, a part of the neighborhood, a member of the club, a cultural member, a fellow veteran, a fellow alumnus, a fellow survivor, a union member, a party member, a fellow practitioner, a member of the community.

Below is a table depicting the overlapping levels of social support.

These types of social supports can be seen as hierarchical.  The foundational level is encouragement, which is generic to everyone at all times.  For some, all that  is needed is someone to provide some encouragement, to show respect, to engender hope.  This may seem to be common sense; however, because of bias, ignorance, stereotypes, misconceptions of the lack of understanding, this may be the type support that is most frequently missing. 

Beyond encouragement, some may need to know how to access or get connected to a resource.  For those who are experiencing an episodic crisis or already have a significant support systems, knowing how to access a resource, along with encouragement, may be all that is needed.  However, if the challenges are persistent or chronic, there may be the need for educational or coaching support.  Educational support implies the individual lacks the information or skills to transition to the next step.  Coaching support implies the need for accountability, focus and mentoring.  Coaching differs from counseling in so far as it does not attempt to treat impairment. Rather, coaching focuses on helping an individual or family achieve a particular goal.  Frequently counselors provide coaching support to their clients; however, coaches should not provide therapeutic support unless they are professionally qualified.

All of these first three levels can be handled solely by relational supports or a combination of both professional and relational supports.  Within this model, while the individual may start with mostly professional support, there is a gradual transition to greater relational support, especially in the areas of encouraging and connecting.

The next level of support is counseling, either therapeutic or conciliatory counseling.  Therapeutic counseling deals with helping the individual improve their cognitive, emotional or behavioral functioning.  It includes addressing addictions, personality disorders and clinical disorders.  Conciliatory counseling addresses helping the individual restore or improve significant relationships.  While this level of support demands a high degree of skill, it is still provided  with the idea that the individual has, or needs to establish, the preceding levels of support prior to discontinuing any counseling support.

Finally, the highest level of support is case management. Case management implies that the "helper" has a significant oversight responsibility for an individual or family due to legal or functional consideration.  Legal consideration may be probation, parole,  Juvenile Court dependency or delinquency jurisdiction, or L.P.S. or Probate Conservancy responsibilities.  Functional consideration may include skilled nursing care, end-of-life and palliative care situation, developmental issues or chronic substance dependency issues.  Even in these situations, the idea is to build, to the greatest extent possible, the preceding levels of support.

To accomplish this continuum of support, it is necessary that all "helpers," whether they are a church volunteer or the clinical psychologist, are trained to see their first role as an encourager, showing respect and engendering hope for all they have the opportunity to support.  To be an effective encourager requires having a basic understanding of the nature of poverty, using the common language of respect, and being educated on the various hidden rules within different social-economic classes and/or ethnic-cultural groups.

Key to this model is the full integration of these relational supports with professional supports.  Once, all social supports were within the purview of these relational support systems; now, due to the fragmentation of our society, the loss of social capital, the complexity of social problems, families, churches, community groups frequently have no idea how they can help those with generational problems of poverty.  Many give up and relegate the responsibility solely to the government.  So, in addition to basic training in understanding poverty, the model envisions concrete ways of building capacity within these relational groups through ongoing education, infrastructure, and support.

Creative Connections

The idea behind Creative Connections is to maximize the amount of tangible (hard) support outside or in tandem with traditional social services and economic development programs.  While there has always been non-government tangible support provided voluntarily by the community groups (food pantries, rescue missions, local nonprofit credit agencies, Habitat for Humanity, etc.), these voluntary associations are rarely included in local government’s strategy for poverty reduction.  What Creative Connections envisions is local government providers taking a lead role in creating and maintaining a collaborative infrastructure linking governmental with non-governmental support providers.  Just like government provides and maintains the roads that facilitate the exchange of market good, the government would provide the electronic vehicle for the collaboration amongst all providers of tangible support.

THE FRAMEWORK

How a community builds an Integrated Continuum of Support must be customized to the community.  Its size, its history, its political character, its cultures, its resources, etcetera, are all factors influencing how to frame and implement any community-wide system.  However, this model does require certain elements to be considered in constructing a vehicle capable of achieving these goals.

First, there needs to be a commitment from the community leaders and the existing services providers to see a collaborative system of support come into existence.

Second, there needs to be a critical mass of individuals and organizations trained in understanding the nature and challenges of those living in poverty and how to be an effective encourager.

Third, there needs to be a meaningful number of those with personal experience of living in persistent poverty involved in all aspects of program design, development and implementation.

Fourth, there needs to be a user-friendly online vehicle that facilitates "ONE DOOR, ANY DOOR" collaboration.  This would include capacity for the following: online sign-ups/registrations, online meetings, collaborative work space with shared documents and scheduling capacity, community asset mapping, resource and volunteer posting, resource-to-need matching.  Fortunately, with the plethora of Web 2.0 applications, several free or low cost products currently exist that are readily accessible by and would facilitate these requirements.

Modern philosophies of freedom have tended to emphasize, as we have seen, either the individual’s release from power of every kind—generally, through an appeal to natural rights—or the individual’s participation in some single structure of authority like the General Will, which replaces all other structures. But from the point of view of the real, the historical roots of liberal democracy, freedom has rested neither upon release nor upon collectivization but upon the diversification and the decentralization of power in society. In the division of authority and the multiplication of its sources lie the most enduring conditions of freedom. “The only safeguard against power,” warned Montesquieu, “is rival power.” He was echoed by Lord Acton more than a century later, who declared that “Liberty depends upon the division of power.”

Freedom, it has been well said, lies in the interstices of authority. This is indeed, I believe, the real reconciliation of the demands of order and the demands of freedom. Authority, any society, any association, must have. It is simply the structure of the association. But the sole possibility of personal freedom and cultural autonomy lies in the maintenance of a plurality of authorities in any society. Each of these may be tight enough as an individual system to provide a context of security for its members. So long as there are other and competing authorities, so long as man has even the theoretical possibility of removing himself from any that for him has grown oppressive and of placing himself within the framework of some other associative authority, it cannot be said that his freedom has suffered.

From “The Contexts of Democracy”, by Robert Nisbet, copyright © 2003 by Carolyn Nisbet.