Cyclical and systemic issues plague impoverished neighborhoods across America---hardships for single-parent households, failing schools, high crime rates, effects from institutional racism, etc. Thus it's an anomaly for youth in these disadvantaged communities to find long-term success.

Common Ground Montgomery, a nonprofit and nondenominational Christian organization, was founded in 2006 to serve youth in the Washington Park neighborhood of west Montgomery to help address some of these hardships through after school and summer programs, mentoring, and as a vehicle for service groups from outside the community to engage.

CGM had three audience groups: the donor base, the volunteer base, and the people served through CGM’s programs. On top of that, the racial dynamics of the city of Montgomery, Alabama, and the systemic effects of this dynamic created unique challenges that needed to be considered.

Notably, the donor base was predominantly middle class, religious, politically conservative, and white. The volunteer base skewed 68% similar to the donor base, but also began to include non-religious civic groups and increased participation across the spectrum of socioeconomic, political, and racial and ethnic lines. Washington Park, where CGM served, was about 92% below the poverty line, almost entirely single-parent homes, and was a predominantly black community.

The overarching goal

The goal was to never, ever diminish the value and dignity of those being served, those serving, and those giving. While everyone might have differing vantage points, positions, and beliefs regarding causes and effects, of utmost importance was the missional focus of when your neighbor was in need, you helped them.

Notable Challenges

• Actual change - Changing the system we were beholden to wasn’t going to come from provocative statements within 140/280 character limits of tweets or Facebook posts in general. Change would come from within the dynamics of relationships nurtured over time. So I opted for a very corporate approach to our messaging in all our marketing and social media content—happy faces from all that engaged in our services, regardless of receiver or giver status. We would avoid at all costs, the “starving child in need of your help” approach many used in dealing with impoverished communities, and instead focused on the joy of kinship we have when we engage with each other.

• Code and trigger words - because of cultural and semantic changes of language, we always needed to be ready to change our messaging. During my tenure we started with terms like urban and at-risk, and have most recently settled on the neutrality of disadvantaged. It’s a fine line to walk as you don’t want to help diminish the dignity of those in need, but you also don’t want to negate the very real reason why we were there to serve to begin with.
  
  From a marketing standpoint as well, if there is no problem/ conflict/ drama, there’s no need to act. If you cannot present a compelling need to act, your call to action is that much weaker and less effective.
  
  Couple that with the reality of privileges and fragilities among the cultural majority and minority (that occur in every group regardless of location, race, or identity), using a corporate approach was the most tenable position we could hold to effect the most change possible.