There are better ways to help
Published: November 6, 2009
I noticed in The Daily Progress article “Interfaith activist group to focus efforts on interpretive services,” Oct. 20, that IMPACT (Interfaith Movement Promoting Action by Congregations) chose this year to lobby government officials for more interpreters for non-English speakers.
In past years IMPACT has lobbied for more government spending for affordable housing and expanded bus service.
I know several members of IMPACT, and I am sure they are representative of the membership at large — well-meaning and well-intentioned.
While I certainly agree that non-English speakers need help in communicating with area service providers, am I the only one that notices a pattern (perhaps “irony” would be a better word) in the causes addressed by IMPACT over the years?
It seems to me that IMPACT’s mission is simply to lobby for more and more wealth transfer payments from party A to party B, in order not to attack the root causes of social problems, but in order to water the roots of the problems.
It seems to me that if they truly wanted to attack the root cause of not being able to effectively communicate in English, IMPACT’s members would join the Literacy Volunteers of Charlottesville/Albemarle (literacyforall.org) and spend their time and energy tutoring others to speak English. If every IMPACT member (the group says on its Web site that it has 1,600 to 2,000) would teach just two people to speak English, and then those two people each taught two others, in a couple of years the problem would be solved. Now, that is attacking the root of a problem.
I learned a long time ago that if you want more of a behavior (such as not learning English), you incentivize it (i.e., make it easier to live in a community without learning English). Stated another way, the choice is not to give a man a fish (IMPACT’s definition of charity) or get the government to give him a fish (IMPACT’s approach and definition of justice), but to teach him how to fish (my point).
IMPACT reminds me of the old UPS commercial where the two hired consultants tell the owner of the company what is wrong with his company and how to fix it. When the owner responds, “Fine, go fix it” the consultants look at each other and say, “Well, uhh, we don’t actually do anything; we just tell others what to do.”
Donald L. Woodsmall
Albemarle County
Advertisement
Reader Reactions
Mr. Woodsmall,
I think that your arcticle shows a complete misunderstanding of the mission of IMPACT as well as the process that it follows. It follows that your comments perpetuate some unfortunate myths prevelent in our community.
First, and foremost, is your use of the term ‘lobby’. You are correct insofar as IMPACT does attempt to influence the decision-making of government officials, when and as appropriate. However that comes after a lengthy process of listening, study, and engagement. “Lobby” is a loaded word. Carelessly applied, in the current political and economic climate, it infers a political agenda (which you, in fact, reinforce later).
Fact is, one could ascribe every individual communication between a citizen, or citizen group, as a lobbying effort, save those few and rare communications that say “good job” and nothing more.
IMPACT is an organization in which several area religious organizations (churches, synagogues, mosques and the like) participate: 1) through support, sometimes financial, primarily spiritual; and 2) through participation of individuals, organized in small groups, and a few times each year, brought together collectively. Its mission is to seek social justice by identifying and addressing the systemic causes of social injustice.
You do the entire organization a grave disservice with the following characterization: “It seems to me that IMPACT’s mission is simply to lobby for more and more wealth transfer payments from party A to party B, in order not to attack the root causes of social problems, but in order to water the roots of the problems.“
This statement is, for lack of a better word, ignorant. Better had you done your research.
Each year IMPACT goes through an issue identification proocess, or ‘listening process’, where small groups within congregations meet and discuss what they see going on in their community that pertains to issues of injustice. These are lively discussions, usually, and often an excellent first step toward becoming informed and educated through one another. I’ll take “well-meaning” and “well-intentioned” as a complimentary statement. Indeed, people are attracted to IMPACT because they already have an inkling that they’d like to make a difference in a broken, hurting world. Most IMPACT participants are already active in the community as individuals and as small groups engaged in the rich array of volunteer agencies and programs in this community. A lot is done one on one, to be sure. Systemic problems, however, are impossible to address or change without collective action.
When IMPACT goes through its listening process, there is no shortage of potential issues to address. The next steps allow for a funneling down to two general areas—through a caucus-like event—where participants vote. The broad areas identified for focus and study have included, in the past, affordable housing, medical care, education, transportation, and now, translation services. I think that you can appreciate that these are generally broad, complex issues.
Once identified, a much smaller group of volunteers involves themselves in focused study groups. This next stage is important. This is when study group members sort through the potential causes, and the possible solutions. They do so by interviewing community members who are centers of influence in business, in appropriate agencies and non-profits, and in government. They collect information, raise questions, do some grunt work. I think it is notable that IMPACT has this very important step, lacking in so many other organizations—it is intentional, genuine, fact-finding, engaging, challenging.
Each study group works its way to a point where they zero in a narrower definition of the problem. For example, medical care became adult dental care for the poor; transportation became the city/county public transit system, its hours of operation, and its routes. Affordable housing has gone through two iterations, the first of which was forming a city/county/UVA task force to address the community-wide issue. Along the way, a great deal of two-way education is a by-product. Trust me, Ken Boyd’s understanding of what affordable housing means to real people struggling to live in this community is, has changed, even if his attitudes and actions have not.
These study groups come up with a white paper summarizing their research, outlining recommended courses of action, and yes, identifying what can realistically be done. The process for most IMPACT members culminates in an annual Nehemiah Assembly which invites the Charlottesville City Council and the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors to attend. The results of the reasearch process are summarized and presented, and their recommendations specific to City and/or County action items are explained. Each member of Council and the BOS present are invited to communicate their support, or dissent, on each action item.
Additionally, members of IMPACT do attend hearings, Council meeting, BOS meetings, etc., as citizen-advocates for their recommendations.
I am unaware of how extending bus service so that it serves the working poor with added evening hours and transport to the neighborhoods in which they live is a wealth transfer scheme. You must be joking. Did that change require public funding, yes? Does it serve the public, yes. Does it allow people to get to work, or maybe shop, yes? I don’t get your point? Is it that public transportation is not a public good? If not, should we drop it altogether? If so, should we only serve that part of the public conveniently located in the most expensive parts of the city, on a schedule convenient to their needs?
The second part of you assertion is equally false as the first. IMPACT does try to get at the roots of the problems. I invite any skeptic to get involved in IMPACT, or at least do their due diligence, before judging otherwise.
This is nothing more than a pre-emptive ad hominem attack against a group that constructively advocates for the least among us. Let the reader beware—do your research before casting stones for the heck of it.
Donald…watering the roots, I like that, well written article.
Post a Comment(Requires free registration)
- Please avoid offensive, vulgar, or hateful language.
- Respect others.
- Use the "Flag Comment" link when necessary.
- See the Terms and Conditions for details.
Advertisement