Getting Clear About “Community”

by Steph Schilling, Knowledge Manager

If you work in philanthropy, you know we talk about “community” as if it’s something static and self-explanatory. But what happens when we pause and ask what we really mean?

I recently had the opportunity to co-author a new resource, Getting Clear About “Community” in Place-Based Learning and Evaluation, alongside Jennifer Marsack and Martena Reed, co-founders of ELEVATE, and fellow pilot members Robiel Abraha of Houston Endowment and Rod Martinez of the Annie E. Casey Foundation. Together, we explored the question: when we say we’re engaging “the community,” who are we really talking about?

The guide is designed to help funders, especially those involved in place-based learning and evaluation, move beyond broad labels and think more intentionally about who they’re engaging, why they’re engaging them, and how power is shared throughout the learning and evaluation process.

This blog is part of a series from the co-authors, where each of us reflect on how these ideas have shown up in our own work. The guide offers a framework for thinking differently about community and these blogs explore what that looks like in practice.  

Community Isn’t Always One Group

One lesson that came through in our recent evaluation of Headwaters’ Early Childhood Initiative is that community is rarely one group of people with one shared perspective. If we want to learn from community, we first need to ask whose perspectives we’re including and whose might be missing.

To reflect the many communities connected to the Initiative, our evaluators partnered closely with Headwaters staff and a five-member evaluation advisory group made up of people with different perspectives on Montana’s early childhood ecosystem. The advisory group reviewed our evaluation methods to make sure they were relevant, culturally appropriate, and inclusive. They also helped identify interview participants and reviewed early findings and draft reports to make sure the final evaluation reflected a range of experiences.

Beyond the advisory group, we interviewed current and former collaborative staff from communities across Western Montana, held focus groups with parents and caregivers, and hosted sensemaking sessions where people involved in the initiative could respond to and interpret the findings. Everyone who participated was compensated for their time and expertise.

The result is an evaluation we’re proud of because it reflects many different perspectives. It also created an evaluation that was much longer (56 pages after many edits!) and time-consuming than we originally intended. When philanthropy effectively engages community, the process becomes richer, but it also requires more time and intention.

Communities Define Themselves

Another lesson is that communities are shaped by context, and that’s especially true when working with Tribal Nations. We recognize that the Bitterroot Salish, Upper Pend d’Oreille, and Kootenai Tribes of the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes (CSKT) are sovereign governments with their own governance structures, cultural protocols, and ways of defining community. Our role is to build relationships, listen, and support the priorities that Tribal leaders identify.

This understanding has shaped how we approach our partnership with CSKT. We spent many years building relationships with the Tribes and brought on trustees and a staff person who are a part of this community. We then asked about their priorities. The result was the CSKT Partnership Fund, established last year to provide flexible general operating support so the Tribe can respond to community needs and pursue the priorities they determine are most important.

My colleague, Resource Partner April Charlo, is an enrolled member of the Bitterroot Salish Tribe. When I asked April what community means to her, she described the sights, sounds, and smells of the Reservation. She pictured the land from above, including the mountains, forests, buildings, gatherings, and the people who make it home. April also talked about the importance of relationships when working with Tribal Nations. Because of history, distrust is often the starting point. Philanthropy can begin to overcome that by showing up consistently, listening, and following through over time.

April’s perspective was a good reminder that community isn’t always something we can neatly define on paper and that relationships move at the speed of trust. “Community” is more than a catch-all term. It’s worth taking the time to ask who we’re talking about, who isn’t yet part of the conversation, and who should have a role in shaping decisions.

I hope you’ll take a look at the guide. You can download Getting Clear About “Community” in Place-Based Learning and Evaluation and learn more about ELEVATE’s growing community of practice for place-based learning and evaluation on their website.

I’d love to hear what resonates with you and how these ideas are showing up in your own work. Reach out to me at [email protected].