Thanks Gregg. These are powerful examples that lend support to basic ToK/UTUA principles we have discussed here, especially around J-I-I. The "assets-based" approach has been a staple of social work interventions for more than two decades, while these community-based initiatives have been in vogue for quite some time  too. We have ample evidence of their potential positive impacts, provided you have the investments of the key stakeholders across sectors, some real financial and social capital to deploy (including basic infrastructure, like schools and healthcare), and perhaps most important, a willingness to "share resources" and "coordinate investments." That latter point often proves the most difficult. For example, we have many resources up here in London Ontario to fashion a host of creative responses to issues such as mental health problems, drug addictions, and homelessness. Yet almost every service provider complains about the lack of integration & coordination of services, the turf battles, and their own survival as an organization, rather than necessarily putting their clients or the community first. 

Indeed, historical & comparative data have long shown the power of social forces to break down barriers & help create mutually beneficial arrangements  or what I refer to as "de-polarization." For example, one could read Goodwins' historical account of Lincoln's presidency (Team of Rivals) and identify compelling evidence of the importance of appointing oppositional "political forces" to one's "team" (cabinet), where they're almost forced to work together. I was commenting the other day that eliminating the super-majority, or 60 votes, for "cloture" in the Senate - thus eliminating the the potential threat of the filibuster - and the replacement with a simple majority means that whoever's in power can get things out of committee by a simple majority and then "win" with a majority vote. If you required 2/3 or even 3/5, then you'd be compelled to work much more with your rivals & avoid the problem of strict voting by party lines. Similarly, the comparative evidence repeatedly points to the importance of forming tribal cross-linkages and enhancing interdependence as a means of reducing conflict and, in the extreme, avoiding warfare. Colson's work on the Plateau Tonga comes to mind, where members of opposing tribes would encourage inter-tribal marriage as a means of alleviating the conflict. 

I might also recommend Gregg's blog from last December that deals with the dysfunctional split between Democrats & Republicans, which resonates with some of the above as well:

https://www.psychologytoday.com/ca/blog/theory-knowledge/201712/our-divided-america

All best regards, -Joe