Works with Claude, ChatGPT, Gemini, or your own local model: paste this prompt and your AI will co-facilitate this exercise with you.

Help me prepare and run the exercise below. First ask for my participant count, time, setting, access needs and intended result. Check these against the stated limits. Use the supplied rules and materials. Explain any proposed changes before using them, and label them as adaptations. Do not invent source claims or require personal disclosure. Give me one step at a time when I say start. I manage the people, physical activity and clock; do not claim to observe the room. Ask me what happened before choosing a next step.

Reference revision: aca1dfe41534ffc0ac93ceac884d420f9889a1a1a3e1f9c47d71a88465aed9e9

# Seeing Communities as Partners

Participants draft inquiry questions about local assets, draft initial plans in split roles, and then conduct an information-gathering dialogue to create a shared community proposal.

**Time:** 55 minutes. Source step durations total 55 minutes (10, 5, 10, 20, and 10 minutes).
**People:** 4 to 24. Small groups of 4 to 8, split into two equal teams: Community Members and Data Gatherers.

## Choose this exercise

**Purpose:** Compare an outside planning assumption with community knowledge to produce a plan based on existing local assets.
**Use it when:** Use when a project group or civic team needs to shift from fixing community deficits to working with existing local resources and resident leadership.
**Skip it when:** Skip when an immediate emergency requires standard command directives or when participants do not have time to explore simulated or actual community viewpoints.

## Materials and tools

- Printed or digital stakeholder scenario briefs (one set per Community Member subgroup)
- Question Chart handout or digital template (one per small group)
- Blank paper and pens or shared digital whiteboard for joint proposals

## Before participants arrive

1. Choose a focus scenario (such as food access, local transit, or park safety).
2. Print or prepare stakeholder role sheets for half the participants in each team.
3. Arrange seating so small groups can easily split into two separate clusters and rejoin.

## Say this to open

Today we examine how our plans change when we treat community members as partners rather than problems to solve. In your groups, you will generate questions to uncover existing assets. Half of you will step into community stakeholder roles with specific lived knowledge, and the other half will gather that data to build a shared plan.

## How to run it

### 1. Draft good questions (10 minutes)

In groups of 4 to 8, review the target community topic. Together, write two lists of questions on your chart: first, how local residents define the problem; second, what individual, organizational, and physical assets already exist in the community. Everyone contributes at least one question.

### 2. Divide roles and review briefs (5 minutes)

Divide each small group into two equal subgroups: Community Members and Data Gatherers. Hand the Community Member briefs only to the Community Member subgroup. The Data Gatherer subgroup does not see these sheets. If there is an odd participant, assign them as a neutral observer and documentarian.

### 3. Draft separate initial plans (10 minutes)

Subgroups move apart. Data Gatherers write a quick 3-sentence action plan based only on their outside assumptions. Community Members review their role briefs and draft a separate 3-sentence action plan reflecting their lived priorities and local resources.

### 4. Conduct dialogue and draft joint proposal (20 minutes)

Subgroups rejoin. Data Gatherers spend 10 minutes asking their prepared questions, listening without pitching ideas. For the remaining 10 minutes, both subgroups collaborate to draft a single revised proposal that builds directly on the identified local assets. Post both the initial plan and revised proposal where all can see.

### 5. Debrief full room (10 minutes)

Bring the whole room together. Have two groups share how their plan changed once community assets were included. Facilitator asks the debrief questions to examine blind spots and the shift from leading to following.


## Debrief questions

- How did your group plan change between your initial draft and the joint proposal?
- What assumptions did you hold before the dialogue that shifted once you heard the community role?
- What made it easy or difficult to follow community guidance rather than pitch your own solution?

**Finished output:** A before-and-after proposal document per group showing an initial plan alongside a revised plan grounded in resident assets.

## Remote

Create breakout rooms for each group of 4 to 8, with sub-breakouts or separate call links for Step 3. Send stakeholder briefs through direct messages or restricted-access links only to Community Member participants. Post initial and revised plans on a shared digital whiteboard.

## Hybrid

Assign in-person participants and remote participants to dedicated distinct subgroups or provide dedicated laptops per table so remote participants act as the Community Members or Data Gatherers with clear audio. Post proposals on a shared online board visible to all.

## Access and participation choices

- Participants may choose to serve as documentarians or question readers instead of acting out a character role.
- Participants can pass on role-play by simply reading stakeholder facts aloud rather than performing.
- Written notes on shared boards can substitute for spoken debrief remarks.

## If the session gets stuck

**Data Gatherers jump immediately to pitching their own solutions during the dialogue.**

Remind Data Gatherers that their sole task during the first 10 minutes of the dialogue is to ask questions and take notes on community assets.

**Community Members do not know what their assigned role should say.**

Provide explicit bullet points on the scenario sheet listing their specific resources, daily routines, and concerns so they have concrete facts to share.


## Terms used here

- Community Asset: A skill, relationship, physical space, or existing organization that already supports community life.
- Data Gatherer: The role tasked with asking open questions to uncover local perspectives and resources rather than offering outside solutions.

## Participant material: Scenario Brief: Neighborhood Food Access

Community Member 1 (Corner Store Owner): You run a corner grocery. You know most families by name and offer store credit. You have two refrigerated display cases that are underused because wholesale fresh produce spoils before you sell it all.

Community Member 2 (Community Garden Volunteer): You coordinate a plot behind the library. You have rich soil, tools, and ten committed volunteers, but no cold storage or distribution network to deliver harvest to seniors.

Community Member 3 (Neighborhood Association Leader): You run a monthly tenant meeting attended by 40 residents. You have access to a commercial kitchen in the community center basement that sits empty four days a week.

## Sources and adaptation

Observed in the Collaborative Discussion Project as Activity 5.4, 'Seeing Communities as Partners', which references frameworks by Dr. Marshall Ganz and community asset-building concepts.

Retained the core five-phase structure, question generation model, and role-split mechanic from Collaborative Discussion Project item 5.4. Added standard scenario briefs, precise sub-group time distributions, hybrid logistics, and access adaptations for neutral documentation roles.

[Collaborative Discussion Project](https://www.collaborativediscussionproject.com/items-1/54seeingcommunitiesaspartners)

Current run sheet: https://unitedwetransform.com/exercises/4-seeing-communities-as-partners/