An intersting approach to building community and financial strength

[lhamo]

This sounds really interesing:

http://foundationcenter.org/pnd/news/story.jhtml?id=390800006

An excerpt from the story:

"FII founder Maurice Lim Miller had been running social services in Oakland and San Francisco for more than twenty years, struggling to lift families out of poverty, when he realized that his clients should be able to do what immigrant families in previous generations had managed to do: figure out ways to succeed and lead the way for others in their communities. In the original Bay Area program, Lim Miller offered families $160 a month to attend regular meetings and record — on a donated computer — their progress, including their incomes, debts, children's grades, and other information, which he audited for accuracy. If a family saved money for housing, business, or education, FII matched the amount two-to-one, up to $1,000 a year.

To give participants full autonomy to make their own successes and mistakes, FII staff also refrained from offering direction or counseling. Lim Miller forbade an Oakland staffer to intervene on behalf of a client who was signing a mortgage with a predatory lender. Other members of the group helped fix up the house so the family could refinance on better terms. Then they bought homes as well. "Friends started picking up the pattern, just like the Irish and Polish had done," Lim Miller told the Globe, noting that FII merely provided a small incentive and the families did the rest."

Interesting in particular in light of the discussion we were having on another thread recently about the prevalence of the victim mentality, and press coverage thereof. Would be nice to see more examples like this.

lhamo

[Lainey]

I like this concept, but isn't there a middle-ground between not intervening when someone is getting a loan from a predatory lender vs. doing it all for them? Something as serious as that has actually caused families to literally lose the roof over their heads and almost all of their other assets.

I think "guidance" vs. "do it yourself" vs. "I'll do everything for you." Like having an older sibling or aunt/uncle who gives you good advice and whom you trust. The concept of learning from your own mistakes is fine when you pick the wrong hair color, but with the bigger things in life most everyone would love to have someone to ask their opinion.

[ToomuchStuff]

I like this concept, but isn't there a middle-ground between not intervening when someone is getting a loan from a predatory lender vs. doing it all for them? Something as serious as that has actually caused families to literally lose the roof over their heads and almost all of their other assets.

I think "guidance" vs. "do it yourself" vs. "I'll do everything for you." Like having an older sibling or aunt/uncle who gives you good advice and whom you trust. The concept of learning from your own mistakes is fine when you pick the wrong hair color, but with the bigger things in life most everyone would love to have someone to ask their opinion.

You hit the key point, you have to have someone to listen to, that you TRUST and you don't mind when they EXTREMELY disagree with you. There is still so much of the teenager mentality in people who decide to go out and prove them wrong, when told their idea isn't good.

While I haven't read the article yet, just from the quoted blurb above, the FII organization will get peoples respect and will be able to link up people who have succeeded to the point where, if personalities clash, they can introduce another member while still showing people a history of what others have done that worked.

[lhamo]

Yeah, I know -- that bit got my attention, too. But a big part of what they are trying to do is empower communities to help each other while helping themselves. It isn't about experts talking down to people and telling them what is right and wrong. What they had faith in, and what apparently worked in these test cases, was that if people were given the environment and incentives to learn how to do better for themselves, they would learn, and they would do so in a group. So yes, maybe one family signed with a predatory lender. Then the other families could look at that and see what happened. They were looking at their finances together, and getting smarter about things. So I can imagine at some point -- whether it came before a disaster for that family or not they don't say -- people started looking more closely at things like what the terms of the loan was, how much interest was being paid, how their principal was changing. etc.

The model probably has its flaws, like all models, but I like how the focus is on empowering people to make better and better choices, individually and as part of a community, rather than lecturing to them. I work with a very different group of people on a very different set of issues, but I find that the more I encourage peer-to-peer sharing and learning the closer the bonds they form and the more effective it is overall. And people also react more positively to me as a mentor/coach when they see that I am trying to encourage that kind of thing, rather than being some kind of "sole voice of wisdom speaking from on high."

Anyway, I like it when people think outside the box. YMMV.

lhamo

[SteveinMN]

a big part of what they are trying to do is empower communities to help each other while helping themselves. It isn't about experts talking down to people and telling them what is right and wrong. What they had faith in, and what apparently worked in these test cases, was that if people were given the environment and incentives to learn how to do better for themselves, they would learn, and they would do so in a group. So yes, maybe one family signed with a predatory lender. Then the other families could look at that and see what happened. They were looking at their finances together, and getting smarter about things.
Those of us with kids -- or those of us who were kids :~)-- probably realize there are lessons in life which can be learned in no other way besides direct experience. Many of us have had extreme experiences (illness, traumatic events, etc.) which were formative in changing our life's direction. While I don't wish anyone to lose their home to a predatory lender, watching that experience play out could be a far more powerful instruction than someone quite unlike (generic) yourself telling you to not do it. Kind of like a "Wet Paint" sign writ large.

[Lainey]

I get that there are many people who "have to learn the hard way" due to stubborness, pride, etc. Me, I'm happy to take in all the data I can get, including others' experiences, and then make the most informed decision I can.

A peer group is a powerful thing and can reinforce behaviors good or bad. I'd rather cast the net as widely as possible.

but it was definitely out of the box thinking. thanks for posting, lhamo.

[razz]

The focus is not so much on the individual as on building community. If one singles out an individual for guidance, has one not undermined the value and importance of the community?

Can you tell that I prefer ML Miller's approach to the issue of the predatory lender?