Empowering destitute people towards transforming communities

2.6Missions from the outside-in must generate hope for a better future, and then realize it

Meyers (1999:14) states that “The best of human futures lies in the direction of the kingdom of God and Jesus Christ as the person who offers the way to become part of God’s kingdom”. For helpers doing missions with the destitute, they start here, but do not stop at this point. Missions with the destitute discover God’s possibilities for seemingly hopeless situations, and then work actively towards making those possibilities a reality. Such missions should always strive to realize a greater measure of SHALOM in people’s lives.

2.7Outside-in missions must promote the means to “responsible well-being”

“Responsible well-being” is a term used by Chambers (1997:10) to describe quality of life; its opposite is ill-being. It obviously echoes the meaning of the word SHALOM. For Chambers, the objective of empowerment is responsible wellbeing for all; he argues that two aspects are fundamental in this respect, namely (1) livelihood security and (2) capabilities by which livelihood security and responsible well-being are achieved.
He defines livelihood security as consisting of “adequate stocks and flows of food and cash to meet basic needs and to support well being. Security refers to secure rights and reliable access to resources, food, income and basic services. It includes tangible and intangible assets to offset risk, ease shocks and meet contingencies” (1997:10). Capabilities signify that people are as well as they can do (or are empowered to do). Capabilities are enlarged “through learning, practice, training and education”, with the outcome being “better living and well being” (1997:11).

2.8“Outside-in” missions must help in ways that do no harm

Slim (1997:1) alerts us to the “dark side (of humanitarian action) that compromises as well as helps the people whose suffering it seeks to assuage”, while Anderson (1999:5) has articulated a serious of actions that may result in harm if helpers are not careful as to how and when they undertake activities:

1. 
   Introducing resources into resource-scarce environments can increase competition and suspicion.
   
2. 
   Adding to the overall resources of an area frees local resources to be used for other things, like further economic exploitation or even violence.
   
3. 
   Providing assistance can severely distort local economic activities and reduce incomes and employment opportunities.
   
4. 
   Operating through existing political structures, formal and informal, in order to gain access or permission, buttresses such structures and may prolong their malfeasance, corruption or role in conflict.
   
5. 
   Offering specific aid to specific groups within a community to the exclusion of others exacerbates tensions and competition.
   

The point made by the examples above should be clear: helpers must always bear in mind the possible consequences of their actions, so that they can learn to help in ways that do no harm.

2.9“Outside-in” missions must combat marginalization by enlarging social power

The destitute as marginalized people have already been described in chapter 4. However, marginalization needs to be combated by enlarging people’s social power, which calls for “outside-in” missions. According to Friedman (1992:164) empowerment that enlarges social power “includes an emphasis on local decision making, local self reliance, participatory democracy, and social learning. It also pursues the transcendent goals of inclusive democracy, appropriate economic growth, gender equality and sustainability”.
Recalling the eight bases for enlarging social power (together with the added bases of cultural values and spirituality named in chapter 4), Friedman’s view of transformation calls for working with the household (community) so that it is empowered to increase the envelope of its social power – the transformational frontier – outward along the 10 lines of social power by building, empowering, and nurturing social networks and social organizations.
“Social networks” could include family, friends and neighbours, while social organizations will include the formal and informal groups to which people (and the household/ community) belong, including churches, sports clubs, mothers’ clubs, neighbourhood improvement associations, credit circles, discussion clubs, tenant organizations etc (Friedman, 1992:68).
His model can be illustrated as follows:

Social boundaries of the household living in absolute poverty (destitution)

Transformation as expanding the frontiers of social power (Adapted from Friedman, 1992:67)

In terms of missions with the destitute, Friedman’s perspective with respect to empowering households out of marginalization, through the “transformational frontier” and into enlarged social power, by using social networks and social organizations, is very helpful. Where he uses the term “households”, the terms “destitute people” and “communities” in the context of this study can also be employed.

Outside-in missions that combat marginalization and enlarge social power would then take the form of the empowerment of individual destitute people to gain access to social power, or to become connected to communities where they can gain such access, by linking people to social networks and social organizations, which also accords such empowerment a strong “community” flavour. As such it overlaps strongly with “reconnecting” and “community”, aspects of outside-in missions addressed above.

3 “Outside-in” missions as the provision of social services

Social services refer to the provision of a number of different, but interacting, services, including medical services, reconnecting people to housing and fostering residential stability, and to employment.