Empowering destitute people towards transforming communities

2Some principles for missions from the “outside-in”

The principles at work when one considers missions with the destitute from the outside-in should be defined at this point.

2.1Missions from the “outside-in” must reconnect destitute people

As Rog & Holupka (2001:1) observe, destitute people are, by definition, isolated from mainstream society. They lack stable housing, and often lack connections with jobs, families, and communities. Once again, “reconnecting” is both an internal and external issue. Casey (2002:1) points out that:

Helping someone to rebuild relationships with family or friends, stay in education or take up training and employment and deal with a drug, alcohol or mental health problem, is as much about tackling homelessness as ensuring a roof over

their head.
In addition to being without housing, destitute people are often unattached to mainstream society in terms of a number of other dimensions, including employment, health care, and connections with family, friends, and the broader community (Wright, Rubin, & Devine, 1998:1-7). This reminds us of Friedman’s (1992) discussion of marginalization.

Against this background, reconnecting destitute people to housing, employment, families, communities, health services and whatever else is necessary, becomes important. Recent approaches at reconnection has started to focus on both individual issues that contribute to destitution (inside out missions) while also intervening in the broader system, attempting to improve more systemic issues, such as increasing the affordability of housing or developing more employment opportunities (outside-in missions) (Rog & Holupka, 2001:2).

The “community” aspect of reconnecting needs to be explored in greater depth. The best way to explain the concept of community in the context of this study is perhaps as follows: a group or fellowship of people sharing the same origin, interests, or goal, or the community of interest in which a person currently lives (Merriam Webster OnLine dictionary, Enhanced Strongs Lexicon 1995: 56). At any given time, a person functions within a community, however loosely (as a loner) or strongly. In the Christian community, fellowship is best described by the words “brotherly love/ sisterly love”: this is to be the defining character of the Christian community (Vines 1981: Logos Search). The church may be termed such a community of care.
In this study, the denotation of the term is primarily that of the “group” in which a person functions, or from which she originates, or to which she is going.
As I suggested earlier, I still struggle to decide whether the destitute constitute a community. At the most we can term them “the community of the street”, a community loosely made up of “nomadic” individuals who roam the streets together in order to be able to survive better. However, if we do decide to call them a community in their own right, it must be understood that the term refers very broadly to a very loose community, a community whose members change often and constantly.
Rather, in terms of this study, I perceive community as an integral part of effective missions with the destitute, because the SHALOM that we envision for people is a community concept (Chapter 3), and can only be fully realized in relationships. By this statement I do not refer to the possible “community of the street” referred to above, but to a social group living in a social space (place) into which the destitute must be inserted/ re-inserted in order really to experience SHALOM. This implies various possible communities with which the destitute can be reconnected, such as:

1. 
   Their communities of origin (if they still exist, or are still functioning, or are not too dysfunctional)
   
2. 
   Existing communities
   
3. 
   Newly-formed communities (for example the community of women at “The Potter’s House”, a project of PCM).
   

2.2Missions from the outside-in must promote advocacy

Although this aspect has already been addressed, it needs to be reiterated: the destitute can be served through a helper’s advocacy. The simple premise is that helpers often enjoy access to power structures that the destitute simply do not possess, for a number of reasons. That means helpers must advocate for better services, better government involvement, better social systems and structures, and eventually for improved social justice. In a sense helpers become emissaries of the destitute, to fight for them where they cannot go.
Yet, as argued above, one cannot stop here. Through community empowerment efforts the destitute must be empowered to find their own voices, to drive their own advocacy. Only then has real empowerment taken place.

2.3Missions from the outside-in must be holistic and comprehensive

To be comprehensive and holistic, “outside-in” missions must aim to address as many of the external factors and internal factors discussed in chapter 6 as possible, and even deal with new issues as they arise.

2.4Missions from the outside-in must take place along a continuum of care

Helpers’ efforts to empower destitute people should be loosely directed along a “continuum of care”, without ever forgetting that destitute people should determine their own specific agendas. The “continuum of care” simply functions on the premise that there is a loose kind of chronology in our efforts to empower destitute people; for instance, outreach and engagement will usually occur before reconnecting people to communities of care, and building trust usually precedes fostering reconnection to employment.

2.5Missions from the outside-in must be strength based

This principle understands, respects and utilizes the fact that destitute people also possess strengths (or assets in the case of community empowerment), which they can contribute. Missions from the outside-in focus not on employing these strengths to empower individual destitute people (which is more the domain of missions from the inside-out, investigated in chapter 6), but on using the strengths of individuals as assets to empower the communities those people become part of or belong to. These strengths consequently become “community assets”, where the community uses them to empower itself, in order to benefit every individual member.