Community Assignment: Comparing the Perspectives and Approaches of Three Organizations

Over the course of the semester it has become clear that there are a multitude of perspectives and approaches used when engaging in community development.  While organizations and efforts aimed at community development or revitalization may not explicitly state a position or the framework from which they are operating, it is often possible to use the descriptors presented to understand the perspective employed.  Examining and comparing the websites of three Pittsburgh organizations provides an opportunity to more critically consider how varying perspectives on community development are expressed and put into practice.  While this analysis will not evaluate if the organizations are working in accordance to the perspective they are espousing, it will explore how the perspectives manifest by examining the organizations’ missions, structures, and programs/services. 

The three organizations whose websites are being explored are Oakland Planning and Development Corporation (OPDC),   Hosanna House, and Thomas Merton Center (TMC).  An initial point of information for gaining understanding of an organization's perspective is to examine its mission.  Mission statements provide a concise explanation of the organization's purpose and specify the area(s) of focus, indicating where the organization thinks attention must be given and where they have the ability to create change.  The text to the right provides and mission statement for each of the three organizations.  While each mission statement denotes importance around engaging people, they do so is different ways.  OPDC and Hosanna House both have reference to service delivery, either by acknowledging specific services, such as “job placement services”, or by saying “providing opportunities.” However, OPDC refers to Oakland (the neighborhood it serves) as a collective community, where as Hosanna House focuses on empowerment at a more individual level (families and individuals).  Looking further upstream, the mission statement of TMC is much more systemically focused.  There is importance paid to bringing people together, but it is done so at the level of fostering structural awareness and change.  The comparisons perceived among the organizations' mission statements are further seen when examining other aspects of the websites, as discussed further below.

Each organization is structured in a similar way, however the differences that do exist, as well as the differences in the way the information is presented can provide important insight into the approach of the organizations.  Each organization is governed by a Board of Directors, however only OPDC provides any information on their Board members beyond indicating the member's position (e.g., President).  What OPDC does is indicate the members’ affiliations while also highlighting which members are Oakland residents, or residents of nearby neighborhoods.  In so doing, OPDC builds on the image of being community focused—an image that is again fostered by how OPDC presents its staff and partners.  Whereas TMC lists their four staff members and job titles, and Hosanna House provides a personnel blurb for their Executive Director (heavily focused on business success and personal accolades), OPDC provides personnel bios which not only describe the staff members’ expertise, but also incorporate their connections with the community as well as experiences with community development.  For example, the Executive Director’s bio references her previous experiences while also including descriptors like “Passionate about Oakland not only as a residential neighborhood but as the economic driver and cultural hub of our region.” Including such language builds a focus on Oakland as a community, and the organization viewing itself as an engaged element within that community.  Similar conclusions can be gleaned from an exploration of the organizations’ partners, however it is useful to first examine the programs and services that the organizations highlight on their websites.

The TMC is most unique in their programming among the three organizations analyzed, because they are so structurally focused.  Engaged in three main areas (Peace and Nonviolence; Economic Justice; Environmental Justice), the TMC works to fulfill its mission by bringing people together to consider and respond to systemic issues using a nonviolence ethos.  As such, the TMC views change as a product of creating awareness of system issues and injustices and mobilizing a voice against those issues.  The programs and services organized by OPDC and Hosanna House are more micro focused than those of the TMC, with heavier emphasis on behavioral implications.  Hosanna House is almost entirely behaviorally focused in its programming, focusing on the delivery of such services as: Youth leadership training and mentoring; Addiction recovery programs; Job placement services for the disabled; Pregnancy care services; and Health and fitness programs.  What is seen here is a scope of resources that serve individuals and families.  Even the organization’s community development efforts have an individualistic leaning, with efforts to educate and support potential homeowners about housing options.  OPDC has a number of programs comparable to those of Hosanna House, such as employment support services and education/training programs to prepare students for employment, however they also have more community level emphasis than Hosanna House.  For example, OPDC is engaged in community development planning (Oakland 2025) and transportation initiatives, bringing in a structural perspective to supplement the behavioral approach used in much of their programming. 

After reviewing the programs these organizations administer, it is interesting to return to a discussion of their structures and consider their partnerships as well as their use of volunteers.  In first examining their partnerships, the TMC does not provide any information on their partners, reflecting their approach through mobilization rather than funding driven programming.  Similarly, they do not seek to attract volunteers, as they want people to engage at the issue level and serve as advocates for the system level changes.  Hosanna House’s use of partners and volunteers is quite different.  Their partners are heavily aligned with specific programs, for example, one partner is Women’s Choice Network, and the descriptor states “our network of medical and ministry centers offers free and confidential resources to women and men who have questions about pregnancy, abortion, sexually transmitted diseases and related issues.” With all of Hosanna House’s partners being described in this way, one can see an emphasis on service delivery to support individuals.  Adding to this assessment is the organization’s use of volunteers—while the volunteers page states that volunteers are an integral part of Hosanna House’s success, the use of volunteers is not mentioned throughout the site, nor is the page a primary destination within the site (in contrast, there is a direct link to donating on the main page). 

OPDC shows quite a bit of divergence from the above discussed approaches to partnerships and volunteers.  First, OPDC emphasizes volunteering, citing it as a pillar of community unity and development, in both its mission statement and its programming.  It further builds on this emphasis through the website, by careful branding, such as using the main tag line “Community Improvement through Involvement”  and heading areas with titles like “I am Oakland” and “Your Oakland”.  This perspective of broad community emphasis is also seen in OPDC’s partnerships, which show horizontal links to the community with a range of partnering organizations—from for profits to nonprofits to government, OPDC is linked to key leadership throughout the city (e.g. UPMC, Councilmen and Representatives, City of Pittsburgh, PPS,  and foundations [Heinz Endowments, Pittsburgh Partnership for Neighborhood Development]).

By comparing OPDC, Hosanna House, and the TMC, we can begin to see the myriad of perspectives and approaches used to support and positively impact communities.  While these organizations may not represent the full scope, we are able to see important similarities and differences that teach us about the practical application of community development theories and perspectives.  The TMC embodies a structural approach, seeking to engage people in deepening awareness and working for systemic injustices.  While Hosanna House also cares about bringing people together, it does so as a means of supporting individuals, so they have the skills and resources to be successful.  OPDC has a similar behavioral perspective, providing services that support individual skill development and opportunity realization, however they incorporate a community dynamic which seeks to improve the community systems and engage community members in the efforts of change.  Each organization seeks to bring people together for the bettermnt of lives, however the perspective they use and the approach they take to fulfill the goal of improvement are quite different, and these differences can be seen by exploring the information they present and their manner of presenting it.