Building Social Capital Through Community Action

A Comparison of the Effectiveness of Two Methods of Building Social Capital to

Affect Social Change to Benefit Low-Income Populations

An Evaluation in Compliance with the Requirements

of the Federal grant award

DHHS-OCS-90ET0145/01

For

The Peoples Regional Opportunity Program

Glenwood Research

February 20, 2002

I know of no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education.

(Thomas Jefferson)

Project Summary

Evidence indicates that significant community development takes place only when local community people are committed to investing themselves and their resources in the effort (Kretzman & McKnight, 1993).

Problems affecting communities are usually complex, with inter-related characteristics and issues, yet traditional approaches of addressing these problems tend to be ‘needs’

focused -- developed by service agencies and delivered to clients. This approach has been criticized as contributing to an environment of dependency, whereby low-income citizens in need of assistance see themselves as having special needs that can only be met by others, as opposed to seeing themselves as empowered individuals and groups of residents who have the ability to affect needed change.

At least two models appear available to Community Action Agencies to promote the building of social capital around low-income and poverty issues. The first model is to promote citizen initiated projects, where local residents identify issues to be addressed, but need assistance in organizing into an effective force for change. In this model, CAA’s might act as support organizations, bringing training, resources, expertise, linkages, and administrative assistance to the initiative.

The second model is a Community Action Agency initiated activity whereby the agency identifies a specific topic, and attempts to marshal residents to undertake a social capital-building effort around it. The agency then acts as both a catalyst to the initiative, and as a support mechanism, assisting in the identification of needed resources and helping residents connect to them.

It is presently uncertain as to which approach is more effective in meeting social capital-building objectives, and what circumstances appear to have greatest influence on social capital-building outcomes.

PROP’s objective for this study was to test these two models of social capital building to result in recommendations and best practices that can be shared with CAA’s throughout the State of Maine, and perhaps with CAA’s throughout the nation.

The intervention consisted of the creation of two pilot projects, each using one of the social capital development models identified in the problem statement. Using a structured evaluation design, the agency wanted to compare and contrast the two models, recording both participant and agency observations, in an attempt to identify the strengths, weaknesses, qualities, and characteristics of each.

Planned near-term outcomes for this project included the development of strengthened social capital efforts within the Cities of Portland and Westbrook, Maine, directed at affecting identified, needed change.

Planned long-term outcomes included the use of an evaluation methodology to result in a report of study findings which can be used by CAA’s to consider and/or replicate methods to result in the creation and strengthening of social capital building initiatives within their service areas.

Study products include:

¨ A technical assistance manual on the social capital community-building process, based on an actual case study;

¨ Subsequent training assistance to interested CAA’s, other organizations, and citizen groups;

¨ Empowered citizen groups working on systemic social change.

Acknowledgements

We wish to acknowledge the staff at the Peoples Regional Opportunity Program (PROP) for their assistance in the completion of this study. In particular, we wish to acknowledge and thank Mr. Joseph Wyman, Community Organizer, and Ms. Betsy Sawyer-Manter, Community Initiatives Director for their willingness to give of their time and expertise to the completion of this study. Their honest and frank discussions of their trials and successes in the completion of this community-building project greatly enhanced the quality of this report.

We also wish to thank the members of the Frenchtown Neighborhood Watch and the Portland Tenants Union for readily agreeing to provide us with the time and information we needed to complete this study.

Table of Contents

Page

Project Summary 1

Acknowledgements 3

Executive Summary

Study Purpose 5

Research Questions 5

Study Methodology 6

Sampling / Study Participants 6

Key Findings / Observations 6

Recommendations 7

Introduction 8

Developing Social Capital 9

Project Purpose 10

Definitions 11

People’s Regional Opportunity Program 14

Study Questions 15

Methodology 17

Sequence of Project Events 20

Findings / Observations 22

Additional Study Questions 30

Spin Off Benefits / Results 37

Summary of Findings & Observations 38

Recommendations 39

Citations and References 40

Appendices 41

Project Scales

Focus Group Facilitator Guide

Executive Summary

A. Study Purpose

This study sought to examine the effectiveness of building social capital through community action. Two methods of building social capital around community issues affecting low-income populations were tested. Each method targeted a specific community issue. One issue pertained to neighborhood re-development, and the other addressed the availability of safe, affordable rental housing.

The study sought to enlighten Community Action Agency personnel with regard to conditions and/or characteristics associated with successful social capital development. Further, the study sought to develop training and technical assistance information for Community Action Agency personnel interested in undertaking similar social capital building initiatives.

Data for this study were gathered between October of 2000, and January of 2002, from PROP staff, and resident participants in each of the two projects undertaken.

The PROP agency contracted with Glenwood Research to conduct the evaluation.

The study also sought to identify conditions and/or characteristics that led to, or appeared to be leading to sustaining local continuation of the programming initiated by the AmeriCorps project. Further, Glenwood Research was tasked with investigating and identifying any observed relationship between AmeriCorps dollars invested and the value of additional resources generated, and determine if such a relationship is constant and predictable.

B. Study Questions

PROP identified the primary question for study as:

Can PROP, and perhaps other Community Action Agencies, act as appropriate vehicles through which social and community issues, that negatively impact upon low-income people, be effectively addressed through the development of social capital among residents?

More specifically, they wished to explore whether:

¨ PROP, as a Community Action Agency, could effectively strengthen social capital efforts within an existing neighborhood organization; and

¨ Effectively build (create) social capital around an agency identified issue?

C. Study Methodology

The study methodology drew from both qualitative and quantitative traditions.

· From a qualitative approach, the research questions served to explore the perspectives of the study participants.

· Quantitative data were also gathered to contribute numerically descriptive information, primarily to allow for a demonstration of change in the strength of social capital from pre to post intervention.

D. Sampling and Study Participants

Representative members of two organizations were interviewed in the conduct of this study, along with members of PROP’s Community Initiatives staff. The two organizations were: the Frenchtown Neighborhood Watch and the Portland Tenants Union. In the case of the Frenchtown Neighborhood Watch, the Officers of the organization were interviewed. In the case of the Portland Tenants Union, which had only recently elected a Board, key individuals, judged to be most influential in the development the organization, were interviewed.

E. Key Findings / Observations

· Although the Agency was unable to complete its investigation of its proposed second model within the timeframe of this grant, it was able to engage two organizations of citizens in social capital building efforts. The Agency was also able to develop information on social capital development that may be of interest to Community Action Agencies.

· The Agency found the following key factors impacted their social capital building outcomes:

o That a change in focus from that of service provider to advocate is desirable, and is enhanced when endorsed by the Agency’s Board of Directors.

o The activities involved in assisting groups in building social capital are sufficient to warrant a dedicated position (even half time).

o Effective social capital building efforts are developed around an identified critical community issue / need as opposed to a general sense of community.

o Effective social capital building activities were those that successfully engaged three population segments to the issue – the public sector, the private sector, and the community (residents).

o Successful engagement of the three population segments appears to hinge on their ability to recognize opportunities for reciprocity, or cooperation for mutual benefit. In other words, their investment of time and effort will result in a benefit to those involved (power, change, reward, etc).

· Based upon PROP’s working definition, it appears that:

o The presence and strength of social capital can be measured.

o Social capital can be strengthened through the intervention of a Community Action Agency.

o Changes in the strength of social capital can be quantified.

· Qualitative and quantitative evidence demonstrated the Agency successfully and measurable contributed to a strengthening of social capital for one of the two groups it engaged in the process.

· The role the CAA chooses to play can, and should alternate between supportive partner and that of leader.

· That involvement in building social capital may identify opportunities for further involvement and positive action by CAA’s in neighborhood rehabilitation.

G. Recommendations

· We encourage PROP to continue to administer the instruments developed during this study at appropriate points in time, as it continues with its social capital building efforts.

· We encourage OCS to continue to consider funding such experiments in community advocacy for low-income populations, and to continue to support Community Action Agencies as appropriate vehicles through which citizens may effectively identify and address critical community needs.

· We also encourage OCS to consider lengthening the funding cycle for such projects as this to better reflect the time required to initiate start-up activities, and to address and finalize project process issues. A study period of at least twenty-four months would provide sufficient time to organize the project, conduct the study, and prepare the final observations.

Building Social Capital Through Community Action:

A Comparison of the Effectiveness of Two Methods of Building Social Capital to Affect Social Change to Benefit Low-Income Populations

Introduction

Problems, whether identified as neighborhood disorganization, poverty, lack of affordable housing, lack of good jobs, high rates of crime, substance abuse, homelessness, or one of the many other social ills which currently impact our communities, are actually issues with complex and inter-related characteristics. This leads some researchers to conclude that attempts to improve communities logically require equally multifaceted approaches, made up of comprehensive, inter-related solutions focused on physical, economic, social and cultural aspects (Kretzmann, J. & McKnight, 1993).

In support of a comprehensive approach to community improvement, there appears to be general agreement within the literature on social capital that institutions or individuals who attempt to act alone cannot successfully acquire the levels of economic security, education, health, housing and cultural sustenance that are identified with healthy, or attractive communities. Instead, they acquire these necessities through networks of mutual interdependence. Therefore, when decisions are made without the input of the community, the effectiveness of programs and interventions developed in this manner may suffer from a lack of community ownership, and may in fact be detrimental to the well-being of communities and their members.

A common approach of many Maine human service agencies is to address community problems from a ‘needs’ approach. Programs and policies developed in this manner focus on deficiencies, or the lack, or absence of things. If there is a lack of good jobs, agencies attempt to develop jobs, or re-train people for jobs that are available. If homelessness is a problem, agencies open shelters and/or build low-income housing. If people are going hungry, agencies distribute food. If people are unable to maintain self-sufficiency, agencies enroll them in subsidy programs, and ‘case-manage’ them through a complex system of providers designed to meet specific needs.

Although this approach to improving the plight of individuals can produce very effective results, it has also been found to create a dependent client mentality. A dependent mentality fosters situations whereby people in need see themselves as having special needs that can only be met by others. Service providers generally respond to ‘needs surveys’ which are used to determine where and how social service funding is allocated and directed. As a result, the people most affected become consumers of services, working the various systems to meet their perceived needs. In addition, although this approach may work to resolve individual situations, it often does not, or cannot effectively focus on the underlying endemic cause that led to the individual circumstances.

For many community residents, this needs approach to problem-solution leads to a self-concept defined by deficits. People begin to think of themselves as victims within a system where they are not empowered to take charge, and therefore become incapable of shaping the future of their community. In addition to viewing people as clients with deficiencies or special needs, other negative consequences have been observed from the ‘needs identification’ approach common within our communities. Such adverse issues include:

& Viewing communities as lists of problems

& Not recognizing community strengths

& Fragmenting solutions

& Not hearing the community wisdom, and not gaining community problem-solving

& Funding directed to providers rather than to residents

& Weakening neighbor-to-neighbor links in favor of client-to-provider links

& Promoting resident isolation by diminishing the need for community problem-solving

& Promoting competition for funds based on worse-case scenarios rather than building upon existing community assets

& Focusing on individual clients rather than energizing entire neighborhoods, or communities (Kretzmann & McKnight, 1993)

Developing Social Capital

An alternative approach to the so-called ‘deficit’ model of social service provision is the development of social capacity from within our communities. Some recent initiatives espouse the development of human capital, such as the ‘Individual Development Account’ program. This program allows for asset accumulation for the purpose of financing client movement toward self-sufficiency. However, even though the client has some choice in how to spend their accumulated savings, the program limits their choices to activities previously identified by organizations from outside the family. As a result, the client experiences the savings process, but perhaps is not truly empowered to be self-sufficient since they are still reliant on others to monitor and regulate their activities.

There are and have been notable attempts at developing social capital. For example, Community Action Agencies are mandated to include ‘client’ representation on their governing boards. The presence of these individuals often results in their receipt of training in organizational skills, accompanied by the development of relationships among clients and other members of the community. Together, with the other members of their tri-partite boards, social capital is oftentimes effectively built within the Board. However, to-date, even Community Action Agencies, which generally assume broadly defined responsibilities for identifying and meeting the needs of low-income populations, tend to focus on problems, needs, and issues. In response to this focus, Community Action Agencies deliver an array of programs designed to meet specific needs of their clientele. Therefore, social capital developed among their clientele is primarily to address often narrowly defined issues, and does not result in a broader community focus.

Another example of social capital building by Community Action is the National Community Action Month. Every four years during National Community Action Month, the network leads a series of dialogues on poverty to discuss how to attack poverty’s root causes at the local, state, and national levels. The National Dialogue on Poverty began in 1996 with more than 150,000 people participating in over 3,000 local dialogues convened by 500 CAA’s across America.

Despite these types of initiatives, Community Action agencies have not generally been recognized as being in the forefront of social capital building efforts, even for those issues most directly affecting their low-income constituents.

Support for Social Change Through the Building of Social Capital

Kretzman & McKnight, (1993) posit two arguments they believe favor the development of a social capital approach to affecting community change. First, historic evidence indicates that significant community development takes place only when people from local communities are committed to investing themselves and their resources in the effort. Second, the system of funding community initiatives, now based on keen competition for limited funds, decreases the likelihood of obtaining financial resources to undertake change. Therefore, Kretzman and McKnight conclude that development must start from within communities, and be based on local assets and resources, rather than await opportunities to be funded by outsiders.

Project Purpose

The challenge of converting low-income clients into problem-solvers, by developing policies and activities based on the capacities, skills and assets of the people and their neighborhoods, is the focus of this project. PROP chose to work at building social capital using two distinct models. The selection of either of these models for any particular problem was based on an assessment of the level of social capacity already present within the affected community.

In the first method, groups of citizens identify a particular need or problem, initially organize into an action group, and then seek agency assistance in administering the process of working toward change. In the second model, the agency identifies the need for community change, and seeks to organize local residents to action.

PROP set out to compare and contrast the two methods to result in observations and findings that could then be shared with peer CAA agencies in an attempt to promote the development of social capital-building efforts in response to issues affecting low-income populations. According to staff at PROP, Community Action Agencies (CAA’s) in Maine do not generally address systemic community issues through the process of promoting and supporting civic capital-building and civic-strengthening efforts. Instead, the general approach used by most of PROP’s peer agencies is to identify specific needs of their client populations, and develop, sponsor, and/or refer individuals to specific programming and interventions designed to address those needs. In this manner, many professionals feel that agency clients learn an additional form of dependence, and although individual needs may be met, the larger problem, the underlying social issue, may be left unresolved.

This is not to say that other CAA’s in Maine do not address systemic issues facing low-income populations. To the contrary, most, if not all agencies are actively involved in influencing social change. However, their methodology for undertaking this activity tends to be political action through their associations, or through contact with their local and federal lawmakers. These activities are initiated by agency professionals, which is different from an approach that attempts to empower low-income clients to undertake this social service change activity on their own behalf.

The more common needs assistance approach, utilized by many social service organizations generally fails to energize communities to action, and may foster complacency around issues, which have no direct perceptible impact on higher income people. Further, this needs approach to social service programming also neglects the strengths (assets) present within a community, and fails to utilize these strengths to solve community problems. As a result, social service agencies often get caught up in a funding dilemma, whereby they must continuously reinvent themselves to match funding source criteria, instead of focusing on problems present within their communities.

Definitions

Community Action

According to the National Association of Community Action Agencies, Community Action Agencies (CAAs) are nonprofit private and public organizations established under the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964 to fight America's War on Poverty. What is significant, and particularly relevant to this study, and to social capital building activity in general, is the further definition of community action as: helping people to help themselves in achieving self-sufficiency. Today there are approximately 1,000 Community Action Agencies in the United States.

Interestingly, the Association reports on its web site that 94% of all Community Action Agencies indicate they are engaged in an activity called ‘Community Coordination’ – which is identified as including the activities of - citizen participation, neighborhood and community organization, information and referrals.

To some extent, all Community Action Agencies are currently involved in social capital building activities. In some cases, particularly among CAA’s that sponsor and operate Head Start programming, activities similar to social capital development are mandated to be carried out with parents of Head Start children. Based on current reported CAA activity, they do appear to be appropriate vehicles for the development of broader, community-focused social capital initiatives.

Social Capital

According to the Informal Education Encyclopedia, (2002), (www.infed.org) the notion of social capital first appeared in Hanifan's discussions of rural school community centers, published in the early 1900’s. Hanifan used the term social capital to describe those tangible substances [that] count for most in the daily lives of people (1916). Hanifan was particularly concerned with the cultivation of good will, fellowship, sympathy and social intercourse among those that 'make up a social unit.'

Since Hanifan’s original terminology, reference to ‘social capital’ can be found in growing volumes of literature, and in many forms. More recent definitions include those by Kreuter & Lezin, 1997 who defined social capital as specific processes among people and organizations, working collaboratively in an atmosphere of trust, that lead to accomplishing a goal of mutual social benefit. Kreuter and Lezin further identified elements of social capital to include: trust, civic involvement, social engagement, and reciprocity.

Bourdieu and Coleman, (1980), defined social capital as: the forming of social connections and networks based on principles of trust, mutual reciprocity and norms of action. Robert Putnam (1995) has described social capital as features of social organization – such as networks, norms, and trust that increase a society’s productive potential.

In a summary of the social capital literature, Krishna and Shrader (1999), present no less than ten working definitions for the terminology social capital, including:

Webs of cooperative relations between citizens that facilitate resolution of collective action problems.
Quantity and quality of associational life and the related social norms.
Institutions, relationships, attitudes and values that govern interaction among people and contribute to economic and social development.
The formal and informal social networks that individuals use to produce or allocate goods and services.
Mutual trust and willingness to intervene for the common good.
Social relations that predispose individuals toward mutually beneficial collective action, and structural aspects that facilitate such action.
Features of social organization, such as networks, norms, and social trust that facilitate coordination and cooperation for mutual benefit.

8. Networks of sociability, both formal and informal, and norms of social trust associated with such networks.

Trust, cooperative norms, and association within groups.
Norms and networks that link citizens to one another, and that enable them to pursue their common objectives more efficiently.

Although each definition presents a slightly different perspective on the subject, as Bullen and Onyx (1998) point out in their study on measuring social capital: a number of themes are emerging to help define the term ‘social capital’. These themes include:

¨ Participation in networks – that individuals acting on their own do not generate social capital.

¨ Reciprocity – that acts of kindness will be returned in kind.

¨ Trust – a willingness to take risks within an environment where others will not intend harm.

¨ Social norms – generally unwritten but commonly understood expectations around personal behavior.

¨ Commons – shared ownership over resources, i.e. community.

¨ Pro-activity – the active and willing engagement of groups of citizens, where people are seen as creators rather than as victims.

PROP’s Definition – Social Capital

There appear to be many forms of social capital, and the challenge is to locate and mobilize those that can contribute to public problem-solving and democratic participation. The PROP agency, in its tradition of community action programming, chose to interpret social capital in functional terms, and in a manner similar to that developed by Coleman (1980) as - the forming of social connections and networks to result in relationships between people that promote action to affect social change.

Since PROP chose to define social capital in terms of citizen action, and was interested in determining if it could effectively assist in strengthening social capital among residents, it’s next task was to devise a method for measuring a change in the level of social capital to compare and contrast results observed through its two approaches. For this project, the agency decided that a strengthened form of social capital would be evident if and when the following conditions were observed, in combination, and when these conditions were more evident post PROP intervention. Conditions include:

¨ An identifiable, working stakeholder group of residents focused on a community need / issue.

¨ A shared vision among the group members, including agreed-upon goals and objectives.

¨ An agreed upon strategy within the group, which includes the identification of critical tasks, time-lines for completion, assigned responsibility, and which is directly linked to the shared vision / goals of the group.

¨ Observable, demonstrated progress on building broader public awareness and empathy for the targeted community need (issue).

¨ Evidence that the group has access to community policy-makers / decision- makers.

Peoples Regional Opportunity Program (PROP)

PROP is the Community Action agency responsible for a geographic area that is closely aligned with the borders of Cumberland County, Maine. Its service area is approximately 853 square miles of rural, suburban and urban communities. The agency is headquartered in Maine’s most populous community -- Portland. The agency was established in 1965, and serves roughly 7,000 families each year, delivering a comprehensive array of services. Like most of its corresponding agencies in Maine, PROP works to identify the needs of its low-income constituents, and then works to provide services to meet those needs, focusing on moving individuals and families toward self-sufficiency.

PROP’s mission statement reads as:

PROP is a Community Action Agency committed to identifying and addressing the societal, economic, educational, and health issues that exist in Maine. PROP accomplishes this by utilizing any and all resources that lead toward the elimination of barriers, which prevent people from reaching their full potential.

In 1998, PROP’s Board of Trustees voiced concern that the agency was ‘needs’ focused, and not positioned to meet the broader objectives as set forth in its mission statement. In response, the agency Director and the Board worked together to alter the Agency’s method of operation. PROP’s resulting effort has been internally labeled as its ‘Community Initiatives’. This effort is now one of four major organizational units of the Agency.

The addition of the Community Initiatives sector is the result of the Board of Trustee’s strategic planning effort. The Board, along with senior management staff, undertook a re-evaluation of PROP’s role in addressing issues of poverty. This re-evaluation resulted in a conclusion that community engagement around issues affecting poverty were absent, and the Agency’s approach to meeting its mission was one of administering an array of singular programming designed around specific needs of low-income people. The Board agreed that instead, PROP would better serve its constituency by increasing its engagement of the greater community -- if it could generate and build social capital around community issues that adversely affected low-income people. However, this approach did not reduce agency focus on service delivery, it simply expanded its approach to affecting social change by engaging the community in the change process.

To accomplish this goal, the Board developed the following objectives:

o To provide safe forums for discussion of the larger issues of poverty.

o To create an internal organization structure that would provide a voice, and policy guidance on legislation and regulatory initiatives that impact low-income people and the Agency’s service delivery to them.

The Board agreed that an appropriate role for PROP was that of a facilitator/organizer of neighborhood or interest group discussions for the purpose of helping the neighborhood reach some consensus on its view and interests, and finding the most appropriate ways of articulating those views. The Board saw this effort as one of empowering others to action, and as a method of engaging the community to resolve critical social issues.

As a result, PROP has undergone a reorganization and refocus, and has begun to reach out to the broader community to:

1. Engage it in the identification of problems which negatively impact low-income people.

2. Identify and utilize existing community resources that can be accessed to address these concerns.

The first of PROP’s new ‘Strategic Goals,’ as established by the Board of Trustees states:

To promote community responsibility for improving the quality of life for people facing economic hardship.

In other words, to develop social/civic capital around low-income issues.

Study Questions

The overall question investigated by PROP was:

¨ Can PROP, as a Community Action Agency, effectively strengthen social capital efforts within an existing neighborhood organizations; and

¨ Can PROP effectively build (create) social capital around an agency identified issue?

More specifically, can PROP affect measurable change, and be identified as the change agent, for each of the conditions it identified as evidence of social capital, namely, that:

¨ There will be an identifiable, working stakeholder group of residents focused on a community need / issue

¨ The group will have a shared vision among the group members, including agreed-upon goals and objectives

¨ There will be an agreed upon strategy, which includes the identification of critical tasks, time-lines for completion, assigned responsibility, and which is directly linked to the shared vision / goals of the group.

¨ The group will have demonstrated progress on building broader public awareness and empathy for the targeted community need (issue)

¨ There will be evidence that the group has access to community policy-makers / decision- makers

And, based on these conditions,

1. Can we measure the level of social capital existing in each of the models as of the start of this study?

2. Using these measures of the existence of social capital, can we identify any change in the growth of social capital (as measured by changes, i.e. a strengthening in those identified conditions / characteristics) post PROP intervention?

3. Can we attribute any observed change in social capital to PROP activities?

And further, for the second tested model, again using the conditions of social capital as defined by PROP (as listed above):

¨ Can we demonstrate PROP was successful in developing social capital around a critical issue?

¨ Can we measure the presence and strength of social capital around the issue both pre and post PROP intervention?

¨ Will stakeholders to the process attribute their interest and activities on the issue to PROP’s interventions?

¨ What were the key factors that contributed to the success or failure of PROP’s social capital building efforts?

¨ What level of commitment to the process was required to meet PROP’s outcome objectives?

¨ Does it appear that targeting social capital building and strengthening is an appropriate activity for a Community Action Agency?

¨ Does the choice of the social capital building model make any difference to the outcome?

¨ What is the most appropriate role for a Community Action Agency with citizen groups engaged in the building of social capital?

Methodology

The study methodology drew from both qualitative and quantitative traditions. From a qualitative approach, the research questions served to explore the perspectives of the study participants. Participants were asked to share their observations pertaining to key study questions through in-depth, and/or focus group interviews. The data gathered from interviews were analyzed qualitatively, and reported as a narrative of participant’s ideas and experiences.

The study sample contained representatives from two distinct social capital-building efforts engaged by PROP during the course of this study. The two organizations are known as: the Frenchtown Neighborhood Watch and the Portland Tenants Union.

Frenchtown is located in Westbrook, Maine, a community adjacent to Portland, and within the greater Portland urban area. The Tenants Union is located in, and focused on the City of Portland, Maine.

Qualitative Methodology

Since the data analysis sought to understand the experiences of the project stakeholders from the participant’s perspective, qualitative methodology was indicated. Sometimes called action research, qualitative research attempts to understand the ‘emic’ view of the experience. The emic view is the point of view of actual participants, rather than the view anticipated by the researchers.

Four data collection strategies were employed for this study:

Key Informant Interviews

Structured interviews, developed by the researcher, were used to interview key project stakeholders. Key informants are individuals who have special knowledge, status, or communication skills and included organization members and Agency staff.

Focus Group Interviews

A facilitator’s guide was developed for focus group sessions. Focus group interviews are conducted in a group setting and are used for obtaining a better understanding of participant’s perspectives and experiences by interviewing a purposefully sampled group of people, rather than each person individually. Focus group participants for this study included a total of five members of the Frenchtown Board, and two members of the Tenants Union organizing committee.

3. Audiotaping

All interviews were audiotaped and researcher field notes documented the interview process.

Artifact and Historical Data Gathering

Artifact and historical data were gathered, including documents related to the operation of the projects, to accomplish data triangulation in support of cross-validation of the data. (Artifact and historical data refers primarily to project records, reports, and other locally developed written information). This included a review of organizational meeting minutes, Bylaws, and copies of communication materials.

The primary method of collecting data for this analysis was audiotaped interviews with stakeholders. A facilitator’s guide (see Appendix) was developed for use during the sessions.

The interviews were transcribed verbatim, capturing the participant’s own words as well as the interaction among focus group interviewees. The interviews each averaged 40 minutes in length.

Constant Comparative Method of Analysis

Study participant’s comments from the interviews were transcribed and the data collected from interview transcripts, facilitator logs, and artifact data collection was analyzed with a specialized software program known as Hyper RESEARCH 2.0 0. ~~using the constant comparative method. Bogdan and Biklen (1997) describe the constant comparative method as follows:~~

1.~~Data collection began with the first observations and interviews.~~

1.~~Data analysis began as key issues and recurrent information are used to conceptualize the first categories of focus.~~

1.~~Additional data was collected that provided many examples of the categories of focus.~~

1.~~The researcher attempted to describe and account for all new information, creating new categories of focus.~~

1.~~The data were analyzed to discover emerging themes.~~

1.~~Sampling, coding, and writing focus on the core categories.~~

Validity and Reliability

The study participant data were compared with the facilitator interview logs ensuring internal validity and the reliability of the results. Internal validity requires that the results present an honest reconstruction of the perspectives of the participants in the study.

Reliability in qualitative research is defined by an audit trail, which makes sense of the data collected. The audit trail is documentation of the development of the major themes. Glenwood Research has conducted a final audit of the data analysis in preparing this report. We are confident in the validity and reliability of the conclusions derived from the audiotaped transcriptions.

Quantitative Methodology / Analysis

Three scales were developed to accomplish this evaluation. The first scale, identified as ‘Organization Assessment’ (Pre and Post), was developed to measure any change in the social capital strength of the two organizations engaged with PROP in this study. The scale was designed to be administered both pre and post PROP intervention. On the scale, key variables, taken from PROP’s definition of social capital, were assigned values representing the strength of that characteristic at both pre and post intervention. Key informants were then asked to individually complete the scale, assessing the strength of the key characteristics prior to PROP’s involvement and again subsequent to PROP’s involvement. These characteristic strength scores were then tabulated for pre and post mean scores.

By comparing the post to the pre score, changes in the strength of the tested characteristics would demonstrate change in the strength of the group’s social capital as it related to the group’s effectiveness as an agent of change. Further, respondents were asked to rate how much they attributed the group’s effectiveness to PROP’s engagement in their activities. (The scale is included in the Appendix).

For the Frenchtown project, the scale was administered in September of 2001, almost one year after PROP’s initial engagement with the group. The instrument was administered only once, and contained both the pre intervention and post intervention scales. Respondents were first asked to complete the scale in terms of the presence and strength of the social capital conditions as they recalled them prior to PROP’s involvement with the group. Respondents were then asked to complete the scale again, but to assess the social capital characteristics of the group at the current point in time.

For the Portland Tenants Union, we utilized an identical scale to that used for Frenchtown, but only administered the pre test in January of 2002. Since the Tenants Union had just elected its Board of Directors, we interviewed and tested those individuals on the organizing committee. Since the Tenants Union has not yet initiated any activities beyond its own internal organization, PROP has not yet had sufficient opportunity to work with them on strengthening their social capital. Therefore we deemed it appropriate to only administer the pre test at this time. A posttest should be administered roughly one year from now, and periodically as PROP deems it appropriate.

Additional Scales Developed For This Study

During the course of this study we developed two additional instruments for use by PROP in its work to build / strengthen social capital around issues affecting low-income people. The instruments and their purpose are described here. Copies of the instruments, with tabulated results, if they were administered, are included in the Appendix.

Frenchtown Neighborhood Watch - Neighborhood Data Collection Survey

Intended for use in the greater Frenchtown neighborhood. The survey instrument is a composite of closed questions, ordinal, and Likert scales to test for neighborhood awareness of the Watch Group, its activities, and to confirm its objectives.

Peoples Regional Opportunity Program - Social Capital Development Project Survey

Targeting a neighborhood, a portion of a community, or a community at-large, this instrument was developed with the assistance of PROP personnel to identify the existence of social capital within a specific geographic area. The instrument is intended to be used both pre and post PROP intervention. The scale was developed using components of the “The Social Capital Community Benchmark Saguaro Seminar: Civic Engagement In America survey, developed by the Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, (August, 2000), along with other questions developed from literature reviews, as well as questions of local interest.

The instrument uses ordinal and Likert scales to test respondent levels of social capital to include: participation in networks, reciprocity, social norms, commons, and pro-activity. In addition, the survey includes a sub scale to test for the presence of barriers to active participation in community activities.

This scale has yet to be administered.

Sequence of Project Events

At the time of the grant award, PROP had already engaged with the Frenchtown Neighborhood Association. PROP’s Executive Director had read an article in the local newspaper, which reported on the formation of the neighborhood watch, its goals and objectives, and its invitation for residents of the neighborhood to participate in an upcoming meeting. Initial issues identified were primarily focused on neighborhood safety, and included opposition to license renewal of a neighborhood bar that was the focal point of many calls for Police Department assistance. The Frenchtown Neighborhood Watch had been in existence, operating on its own, since 1997.

PROP’s Executive Director attended the meeting, and suggested that PROP, as an agency, was interested in the group’s objectives for the neighborhood, and might act in a supportive role assisting the group in moving forward.

Reaction from the Neighborhood Watch organizers was very positive, and PROP was welcomed to the effort. PROP’s Executive Director and its Community Initiatives Director begin attending Watch Group meetings, and offering general support and assistance.

PROP’s Community Initiatives Director is asked to spearhead the Frenchtown project.

Under the direction of the Community Initiatives Director, PROP developed the TTA –OCS grant application around the testing of two models of building social capital – March of 2000.

The agency was notified of its OCS award in September 2000.

Community Initiatives undertakes the recruitment and hiring of a position (at 20 hours per week) called a Community Organizer.

The position was filled in December of 2000. The position, reporting to the Director, was assigned to support the Frenchtown Neighborhood Watch. The new employee was introduced to the Watch group, and began attending its meetings, and working with its Board to identify ways to support its efforts and agenda.

Work also began on the identification of a second project. The agency identified ‘housing’ as the issue around which it wished to build social capital.

The Community Initiatives Division tested a number of approaches for selecting the second project. For example, they

1. Considered working through the Southern Maine Affordable Rental Housing Coalition, but rejected that approach since the coalition was made up primarily of service provider organizations.

They also explored the development, in conjunction with other PROP agency programs, particularly its Child Care Program, of a low-income advocacy group, to be made up of existing PROP clients, and be focused on the selected topic of housing.

They attempted to develop this concept through three regional comprehensive service teams newly created by PROP to assess regional needs and re-structure service delivery to better provide regional responses to low-income clients. This effort stalled because the regional teams had not fully developed, and were not operational. Due to the time constraints of the OCS grant (1 year), it was decided to look for another social capital building venue for the purpose of this study. However, the agency remains committed to utilizing these regional teams as the basis for building social capital around issues identified in each of the three geographic regions within its service area.

The Community Organizer provided evidence of this commitment during our interview with him. During that discussion he stated:

We also had talked about and continue to talk about getting together a group of PROP constituents and in someway, and this has changed dramatically over the year, getting them together and trying to increase their access to advocacy. In other words to give them the ability to advocate on their own behalf, and advocate on issues that are important to them with PROP’s support in terms of training and a variety of other stuff.

2. Due to the time constraints of this grant, along with the fact that the regional service teams were not fully developed, the agency moved to a hybrid second method of testing Community Action Agency effectiveness at building social capital. This method involved the identification of a new group of City of Portland residents that showed an interest in forming a more formal organization, as of January of 2001, around tenants rights and affordable housing. In this approach, PROP identified an opportunity to engage citizens who had self-selected to an issue, but had not yet organized. This engagement afforded PROP an opportunity to initiate social capital strengthening with a group of residents at the inception of the activity, rather than after a formal organization of citizens had been initiated, such as in the case of its involvement with the Frenchtown Neighborhood Watch – hence, our label of a hybrid version of its planned second model.

This approach differed from PROP’s initial intent only from the standpoint that it had not been the organization to host the initial meeting around the community issue. Instead, the ‘tenants rights’ topic was hosted by another local social service provider agency, know as Portland West. Portland West is a neighborhood-based provider representing the interests of the residents of Portland’s West-End. Portland West developed as a neighborhood association, but progressed into an actual service agency. It now delivers programming such as AmeirCorps and Youthbuild, among other programs.

Portland West initiated a monthly forum to address issues affecting neighborhood and city residents. When it announced its meeting in January, and the agenda focused on housing and tenants issues, PROP’s Community Initiative Division decided to attend.

Both the Community Initiatives Director and the Community Organizer attended the Portland West meeting. At the meeting, interest was demonstrated by residents to form a tenant’s union organization, and another date was set to begin this process. A decision was made by PROP to attempt to work with these residents. PROP, in the form of the Community Organizer, attended the Tenants Union initial organization meeting.

This group of citizens, including PROP’s Community Organizer, developed an organizational committee and initiated work, intermittently over the next year, to get to a point where it felt ready to develop an organizational structure. During this process, PROP’s Community Organizer clarified his role with the group as one where he represented PROP, and was making himself and the Agency available to the group in support of their organizational and topical interests.

The organizing committee worked for a year to develop its mission statement and a set of By-Laws. In January of 2002, the Portland Tenants Union elected a Board of Directors. PROP, through its Community Organizer, remains an active participant in the Union, and the Agency is providing general support services to it.

Findings and Observations

Frenchtown

Q. Can PROP, as a Community Action Agency, effectively strengthen social capital efforts within an existing neighborhood organization?

1. Can we measure the level of social capital existing in each of the models as of the start of this study?

3. Can we attribute any observed change in social capital to PROP activities?

Both the qualitative and quantitative data provided us with evidence that PROP did effectively strengthen social capital efforts within the Frenchtown Neighborhood Watch, an existing neighborhood organization. In addition, the experience confirmed that social capital could be measured prior to PROP’s involvement. Key neighborhood organization members judged the strength of social capital, in terms of PROP’s defined conditions, as lower prior to PROP’s involvement, and higher subsequent to it.

In demonstrating the level of social capital pre PROP engagement, the project’s originator described her neighborhood as follows:

I kept thinking that this was such a horrible neighborhood. I had three incidents happen which I reported to the police. I thought I was going to have to sell my house, because I thought I couldn’t stay here…. but I was fond of my home and I didn’t want to do that. I didn’t want to go knocking on people’s doors either…and I was frightened of course. It was surprising to find out that there were a lot of people who had issues too.

Another study participant expressed his frustration by stating:

I was tired of this too, and seeing all the violence. I wanted a nicer place to live.

In an attempt to improve the neighborhood, the project’s originator coordinated a community meeting and stated that:

…the first meeting went beyond my expectations…we had over twenty people. I didn’t really have high expectations, so when all these people showed up…I thought it was a success that there were people interested in doing something positive for the neighborhood.

However, although her expectations were exceeded, she expressed concern over the lack of resources available to sustain the group’s efforts by stating:

We had no money. We couldn’t even make photocopies without doing it at our own expense.

The qualitative data also demonstrated a recognition that the group built its social capital over the course of the study, and that PROP’s intervention was identified as the reason for the change.

In discussing the role PROP played in supporting her efforts, the Neighborhood Watch President stated:

PROP has been involved almost from the get go. I had worked with social services and I had heard of PROP and was familiar with their programs, so my expectations were that it would be a marriage made in heaven. It would be a struggle without PROP. Without them, we wouldn’t have even been recognized.

Additionally, she stated that:

It would be a struggle without PROP. Not only has PROP helped us with all the physical stuff and supporting us with money, but PROP is a major organization in Cumberland County and their presence in our group gave us more credence with city officials.

Another study participant stated:

We got a recent grant because we had an attachment to PROP. Without them we wouldn’t have been recognized. They helped us through low points; they give us a certain internal energy that gives us the impetus that has kept us going. Without it we wouldn’t be anywhere near where we are today.

The Neighborhood Watch President also stated that:

When we first started, people were angry. The people were chaotic and they wanted to complain about what had happened, but I think with PROP’s involvement, we as a group have learned the proper way to effect change. It’s not by screaming and hollering. I think that’s what has been one of the best outcomes of all this.

From the quantitative analysis, results of the pre intervention test demonstrated that the characteristics of social capital, within their definition, could be measured.

Using the Organization Assessment Scale, members of the Neighborhood Watch Board of Directors were asked to complete a pre and post assessment of the organization. Respondents were asked to: Please think back to the time before PROP was involved with the Neighborhood Watch Group. Using the following scale, please rate each of the following group characteristics prior to PROP’s involvement.

Respondents were presented with the following scale:

Definitely Definitely

Not º º º Yes

1 2 3 4 5

The following chart depicts the average scores achieved for each tested variable. Total respondents were five members of the Frenchtown Officers.

Tested Variables	Prior to PROP’s Involvement
An identifiable working group of residents focused on community needs / issues	3.40
Demonstrated progress building broader public awareness for goals and objectives	2.80
A shared vision among the group members about the group’s purpose	2.80
Clearly articulated goals and objectives which all active members could identify	2.80
Demonstrated evidence it had successful interaction with community policy-makers	2.25
Assigned responsibility for the tasks to group members, or neighborhood residents	2.20
An agreed upon strategy for moving forward to achieve its goals and objectives	2.00
Demonstrated progress building broader public support for goals and objectives	2.00
Developed a list of critical tasks to meet its objectives	1.75
Assigned tasks directly linked to the shared vision / goals of the group	1.50
Had developed a time-line for completion of critical tasks	1.40

Clearly, respondents believed the organization demonstrated its greatest strength in being an identifiable working group of residents focused on community needs and issues.

The mean (average) score recorded for the combined group of ‘strength of social capital’ characteristics was a 2.5 out of a possible 5.0 prior to PROP’s involvement.

From the quantitative data, PROP’s intervention also demonstrated a measured change to the Neighborhood Watch social capital strength. The following chart provides evidence that post intervention scores increased for every tested variable:

Tested Variables	Prior to PROP	Post PROP	Change
An identifiable working group of residents focused on community needs / issues	3.40	4.20	+0.80
Demonstrated progress building broader public awareness for goals and objectives	2.80	4.00	+1.20
A shared vision among the group members about the group’s purpose	2.80	3.60	+0.80
Clearly articulated goals and objectives which all active members could identify	2.80	3.00	+0.20
Demonstrated evidence it had successful interaction with community policy-makers	2.25	4.25	+2.00
Assigned responsibility for the tasks to group members, or neighborhood residents	2.20	2.80	+0.80
An agreed upon strategy for moving forward to achieve its goals and objectives	2.00	3.80	+1.80
Demonstrated progress building broader public support for goals and objectives	2.00	3.75	+1.75
Developed a list of critical tasks to meet its objectives	1.75	3.80	+2.05
Assigned tasks directly linked to the shared vision / goals of the group	1.50	2.75	+1.25
Had developed a time-line for completion of critical tasks	1.40	2.00	+0.60

The average pre intervention score was calculated at 2.5. The average post intervention score calculated to 3.5.

As noted above, every tested variable demonstrated an increase in score post PROP intervention. Further, when asked: To what extent do you credit any improvement to your functioning as an effective group to PROP’s involvement? – respondents rated PROP’s contribution to be a 4.0 on a five point scale, where 1 = No Contribution, and 5 = Totally Responsible.

Respondents were also asked: To what extent do you credit any improvement in your group ability to ‘effect change’ to PROP’s involvement? – respondents, using the same 5 point scale where 1 = No Contribution, and 5 = Totally Responsible, rated PROP’s contribution at a 4.0.

When we organize the tested variables by change in score, we can see that PROP had, in the opinion of the Neighborhood Watch Board, its greatest impact on the strengthening of the following characteristics:

¨ The identification of critical tasks associated with Watch goals and objectives.

¨ Accessing and influencing community policy-makers.

¨ Developing a strategy for action.

¨ Developing broader public support for the group’s goals and objectives.

Tested Variables	Change
Developed a list of critical tasks to meet its objectives	+2.05
Demonstrated evidence it had successful interaction with community policy-makers	+2.00
An agreed upon strategy for moving forward to achieve its goals and objectives	+1.80
Demonstrated progress building broader public support for goals and objectives	+1.75
Assigned tasks directly linked to the shared vision / goals of the group	+1.25
Demonstrated progress building broader public awareness for goals and objectives	+1.20
An identifiable working group of residents focused on community needs / issues	+0.80
A shared vision among the group members about the group’s purpose	+0.80
Assigned responsibility for the tasks to group members, or neighborhood residents	+0.80
Had developed a time-line for completion of critical tasks	+0.60
Clearly articulated goals and objectives which all active members could identify	+0.20

We also had an opportunity to test the greater Frenchtown neighborhood with regard to its knowledge of the Neighborhood Watch group, its support for its efforts, and its confirmation of topics on which the Watch Group was working. The actual survey, with tabulated results, is located in the Appendix.

The survey respondents were all residents who at one time or another, attended a Neighborhood Watch meeting. Results from that survey, which consisted of 50 survey forms, completed either by personal or telephone interviews conducted by Neighborhood Watch Board members and/or PROP’s Community Organizer, indicated the following:

¨ Although the names of the respondents were taken from Neighborhood Watch meeting minutes, 62% of respondents could not recollect attending a Neighborhood Watch meeting

¨ The survey failed to identify any clear consensus among respondents as to a reason for their lack of continued participation in the Watch Group.

¨ The survey confirmed that the majority of those interviewed agreed with the Watch Group on the neighborhood issues needing attention. The top 3 issues identified by residents were:

Ø The City’s plan to physically rehabilitate Brown Street (Brown Street is a reference to the center of the Frenchtown neighborhood).

Ø The need for neighborhood long range planning.

Ø The need for additional neighborhood youth activity opportunities.

In addition, the survey found:

¨ Forty-three percent (43%) of residents were unwilling to donate any time to neighborhood improvement activities.

¨ Forty-seven percent (47%) indicated they would be willing to commit to between one (1) and four (4) hours per month. Five percent (5%) said they would commit five (5) hours per month, and four percent (4%) said six (6) or more hours.

¨ Sixty-nine percent (69%) of respondents said they knew of the Watch Group, but just 38% indicated they were aware of Watch Group activities.

¨ Fifty-seven percent (57%) reported they knew why the Neighborhood Watch was initially formed, yet respondents were roughly split between the two reasons given for formation: either concern over neighborhood crime (65%), or concerns around Andy’s Tavern (47%).

¨ Seventy percent (70%) of respondents either disagreed, or were unsure if the Neighborhood Watch had succeeded in accomplishing its objectives to-date (twenty-seven percent (27%) disagreed, and forty-three percent (43%) were unsure).

¨ Fifty-three percent (53%) either disagreed or were unsure that the Watch Group accurately represented their neighborhood interests and concerns. (18% disagreed, 35% were unsure, and 47% agreed).

¨ Yet, eighty percent (80%) disagreed that the Neighborhood Watch Group was no longer necessary

¨ Seventy-two percent (72%) agreed the neighborhood has problems / issues that need to be addressed; and eighty-two percent (82%) believe positive changes can be made in the neighborhood.

¨ Ninety-eight percent (98%) agreed that residents working together are more effective than individuals working alone on neighborhood issues.

¨ Forty-five percent (45%) agreed, and forty-three percent (43%) were unsure whether the Frenchtown Watch Group is effective at getting neighborhood issues addressed

¨ Yet sixty-five percent (65%) disagreed, while twenty-nine percent (29%) were unsure, that a new group would be more effective at addressing neighborhood issues

The Second Model - Portland Tenants Union

From the description provided above, in the Sequence of Events section of this report, the reader is aware that work with the Portland Tenants Union has been primarily limited to organizational efforts, and the Union has just recently elected a Board of Directors. The Union also drafted a set of By-Laws that it will ask the Board to adopt at its next meeting.

From the qualitative data, gathered through interviews with members of the Tenants Union organizing committee, it appears that members of the Tenants Union, who were most familiar with PROP and its activities prior to the formation of the Union, indicated the most enthusiasm for PROP’s involvement in the group.

As one member stated:

I was pleased - that PROP would be a part of this, or that we would be a part of PROP. Because I have always been enthused with their housing – what they have accomplished with housing – and what they are going to continue with housing. I was really pleased.

Those with less pre project knowledge of the Agency appear to have less expectations of PROP.

Another member of the organizing committee, not very familiar with PROP, voiced it in this manner:

It wasn’t like he [the Community Organizer] was doing anything special to me. He was just participating in our meetings just like any other person. But I knew we could come here to get support. There were certain things that PROP could technically make happen, because I knew PROP could handle it.

There appears to be a consensus of recognition that PROP is available to the organization for support. However, there was no consensus of what form that support has, should, or will take. One individual said: It was never presented as “PROP is here to help you conduct community building.” It was more of a behind the scenes thing.

From our interviews with the Community Organizer we found that this same low-key approach to support provision, as described by Tenants Union members, was also evident when PROP first engaged with the Frenchtown Neighborhood Watch. This low-key initial approach appears to be the method used by PROP at initiation of its engagement with both groups.

Members of the Tenants Union were asked to complete a pre intervention version of the Organization Assessment scale. Respondents were presented with the following question:

Using the following scale, please rate whether the characteristics listed are apparent, and if so, to what degree, in the Tenants Union.

The scale appeared as follows:

Definitely Definitely

Not º º º Yes

1 2 3 4 5

Results are provided here, in descending order, by mean score.

Tested Variables	Prior to PROP’s Involvement
An identifiable working group of residents focused on community needs / issues	4.50
Clearly articulated goals and objectives which all active members could identify	4.25
A shared vision among the group members about the group’s purpose	3.75
Demonstrated evidence it had successful interaction with community policy-makers	3.75
Demonstrated progress building broader public awareness for goals and objectives	3.50
An agreed upon strategy for moving forward to achieve its goals and objectives	3.50
Demonstrated progress building broader public support for goals and objectives	3.50
Assigned tasks directly linked to the shared vision / goals of the group	3.50
Developed a list of critical tasks to meet its objectives	3.25
Assigned responsibility for the tasks to group members, or neighborhood residents	2.75
Had developed a time-line for completion of critical tasks	2.25

The average (mean) pre score calculated to a 3.5.

One member of the Tenants Union organizing committee noted, with regard to the high score assigned to the characteristic presented as: An identifiable working group of residents focused on community needs / issues, that:

Although we haven’t demonstrated evidence of successful interaction with community policy-makers, policy leaders in the City know who we are. Within two months of our formation, I attended a City Council meeting and said something in reference to the Portland Tenants Union. The Mayor responded by saying “Thank you”, and “its about time we had a Tenants Union in the City, and I hope you do good work.”

The following chart demonstrates a comparison of scores for the Frenchtown Watch to the Tenants Union at pre PROP intervention.

Tested Variables	Frenchtown Pre Scores	Tenants Union Pre Scores
An identifiable working group of residents focused on community needs / issues	3.40	4.50
Demonstrated progress building broader public awareness for goals and objectives	2.80	3.50
A shared vision among the group members about the group’s purpose	2.80	3.75
Clearly articulated goals and objectives which all active members could identify	2.80	4.25
Demonstrated evidence it had successful interaction with community policy-makers	2.25	3.75
Assigned responsibility for the tasks to group members, or neighborhood residents	2.20	2.75
An agreed upon strategy for moving forward to achieve its goals and objectives	2.00	3.50
Demonstrated progress building broader public support for goals and objectives	2.00	3.50
Developed a list of critical tasks to meet its objectives	1.75	3.25
Assigned tasks directly linked to the shared vision / goals of the group	1.50	3.50
Had developed a time-line for completion of critical tasks	1.40	2.25

We should not consider the Tenants Union scale as a post PROP intervention score because the Agency has not yet had an opportunity to work in any capacity other than as a participant in the activities designed to organize the group.

Additional Questions

There were several additional questions that arose during the course of this study. They included:

1. What were the key factors that contributed to the success or failure of PROP’s social capital building efforts?

From an analysis of the qualitative data, collected from interviews with key PROP staff, several factors emerged that appear to be important, in terms of Community Action Agency efforts at building social capital. These factors include:

¨ Commitment from the top (the Board) of the organization – to engage in advocacy and outreach.

PROP’s social capital efforts were initiated by Board action. The agency leadership clearly articulated a desire to shift from its total emphasis on service delivery to one of active advocacy in the fulfillment of its mission.

¨ Issue-focus – a clearly identified community need

PROP Community Initiative staff hold the opinion that it is the issue that brings people out and encourages them to get involved. As the Community Initiatives Director stated:

That’s my belief. I think there has to be something in it for people. It can’t just be giving people information -- there has to be some interaction, there has to be some need for them to have some involvement, and to do something, to feel that they are giving something as well as receiving [something]. I do think it has to be issue oriented, people are not going to come out just to talk about the good of the community. I think that is too unfocused for people, and people are too busy to come out for just that reason.

¨ Getting the correct players to the table to work together – PROP identified three (3) sectors that constitute the ‘correct players’ as 1). The community (residents),

2). The private sector and 3). Service providers.

Although PROP’s constituency is low-income people, their mission is broadly defined to include, in part: identifying and addressing the societal, economic, educational, and health issues that exist in Maine. To accomplish this mission, the Agency indicates that work with all segments of the community is necessary to affect social change. In the case of both models, low-income people are involved in each project, but are not the primary constituents. In fact, in Frenchtown, PROP’s Community Initiatives Director observed that the lower income neighborhood residents were less involved in Watch Group activities than residents from higher socio-economic levels.

The Community Initiatives Director noted:

……. I think there is a true concern of the people in the group wanting it to be a mixed income neighborhood, wanting the substandard apartments to be brought up, that there be places for kids to go and things for kids to do. I don’t think that the group has been exclusive of the low-income population -- I just don’t think that they found a real way to tap into their involvement.

However, recent events in the neighborhood appear to be changing this situation, and engaging more low-income residents. She reported:

The thing that I saw about the housing meeting we had last week was that more of those low-income people came to the table, because I think there was an issue that was being talked about that they felt that they could connect to.

The issue was development of properties into single homes for sale to low-income households, which would convert a number of neighborhood low-income renter families to homeowners. This interest in an issue is an appropriate transition to the next key factor identified by PROP staff, as:

¨ Reciprocity – participants need to be able to see how they will benefit from their participation

The personal decision to participate in an active group, focused on social change, appears to be influenced, at least in part, by a sense that there is something of a personal impact to be gained from the effort. Again, the Community Initiatives Director stated:

I think there has to be something in it for people. It can’t just be giving people information -- there has to be some interaction, there has to be some need for them to have some involvement, and to do something, to feel that they are giving something as well as receiving [something].

When asked what she thought about trying to get low-income people involved in social capital activities, the Director stated:

I think what it tells us is that we have to be very clear in drawing the connection for people about if you become an advocate, and you receive this training, here’s what the benefits are going to be to you and to the people that you want to help. So, they have to see a direct benefit…. we would have to be very clear before we started what it is their interested in getting done.

When asked if she thought the benefit had to be personal rather than altruistic, the Director replied:

Absolutely, I absolutely do. I think that the problem is, people have so many other things that are competing for their time – they can’t take on too much just for the good of the community.

¨ Leadership – someone keeping the group on task and focused

From the standpoint of successfully managing a social capital building activity, it appears that leadership can be provided in at least two ways - via indigenous leadership, and through Agency leadership. Indigenous leadership is the stepping up by one or more citizens engaged in a social capital building effort. In this manner, local citizens maintain ownership for the project, and provide it with direction and momentum.

Agency leadership is when the Agency decides to take a more active role in moving the project forward. In this role, the Agency might provide citizens with training and skills development assistance so that they become more comfortable in their leadership roles. In other instances, the Agency, fearing the loss of project momentum, might urge the group to undertake specific activities in an attempt to keep the project moving forward.

Deciding when and how to accommodate both forms of leadership offers many challenges, such as engaging the Agency to the process without intimidating local residents from active participation. In this project, PROP moved from a supportive role to one of active participant, with an equal voice in the project.

As PROP’s Executive Director explained:

I believe Agency leadership should be facilitative, whereby we promote leadership from within the group, and accept behind the scenes type roles for ourselves. These roles leave us in a position of being with, but slightly less conspicuous than the citizen members of the group.

The Director of Community Initiatives addressed this issue by stating:

I guess my expectation, as it began, was that PROP was going to be more in a role of providing help. The evolution to active participant seemed very natural, because I don’t think that the group distinguished us any differently from any other group member, and in fact they embraced us as a group member.

…. an imbalance of power in the relationship is a real possibility if you don’t become a participant in the group. I think that there is still an expectation and a look to us for some sort of expertise - I certainly get that from the groups. But, I also think that there is much more balance of power in being a participant than just being a helper.

When you do this kind of work you can’t do the work well unless you fully engage. You have to become as fully engaged in the group as you want the group to become on an issue. The intentions are not to force your ideas or expectations on the group. I think that that is a very difficult balance. Another one of those personal skills the Community Organizer position needs is knowing when to push and when not to push.

The Community Organizer added:

Even now, anything that happens goes through the group - any idea or activity is only suggested by individual members. We (PROP) might say something like “what do you think about the idea of a community garden”? Then, its up to the group to pick up the ball and go – either with or without my and PROP’s help.

¨ Support – ongoing administrative support

The provision of ongoing organizational and administrative support appears to be an expected and essential ingredient to the process of building social capital. PROP accomplished its support role by developing a position within the Agency and assigning it to the social capital-building projects.

A member of one of the organizations involved in this study, the Frenchtown Watch, expressed her opinion on support as follows:

I thought PROP was like an angel - it was our angel. We had no money -- we couldn’t even make photocopies without doing it at our own expense and here is the agency coming in, not only offering to help us but also paying for the copies, it was wonderful.

She went on to say:

It would be a struggle without PROP. Not only has PROP helped us with all the physical stuff, and supporting us with money, but PROP is a major organization in Cumberland County, and their presence in our group gave us more credence with city officials.

The Community Initiatives Director for PROP expressed a similar sentiment by describing PROP’s contributions to the project:

Yes, I think we have a great deal to offer these groups in terms of infrastructure. We do support them, and champion their cause, but I think we have to know that our role will change over time.

She also noted:

You have to have someone in the organization that is dedicated to this (social capital-building) activity.

Social capital-building needs someone that has some training and experience bringing people together around an issue, and who can help facilitate meetings so that they move forward in a way that is both productive, yet considerate of the needs of people in the groups.

PROP’s Community Organizer, responsible for the social capital -building projects stated:

A lot of social capital-building ends up being things that can slip through the cracks pretty easily. If you simply add these duties to those of someone already involved in another job for the Agency, the social capital-building activity may end up being less of a priority.

2. What level of commitment to the process was required to meet PROP’s outcome objectives?

PROP staff believes that successful involvement in building social capital to affect social change requires a strong level of commitment from the Agency. More specifically, they identified the following activities as significant:

o Commitment from PROP’s Board

o Re-organizing the Agency to identify community initiatives as one of its four primary organizational units – and emphasizing community action throughout the agency

o Developing a funded position – in the case of PROP, called the Community Organizer – as of this writing, PROP has chosen to fund the position beyond the length of its grant, at least through June of 2002.

3. Does it appear that targeting social capital building and strengthening is an appropriate activity for a Community Action Agency?

According to PROP’s Community Initiatives Director, there are a number of reasons why social capital building activities fit with the Community Action Agency mission.

The first relates to its organizational structure –

I think about the way CAA’s are organized. You have a public sector, a private sector, and a low-income sector. I think those same three ingredients become necessary in good social capital building too.

The second relates to the history of CAA’s

I think it [community organizing] is an important part of what CAP agencies are. I think it is one [role] we have long ignored. I think we have become very service directed in terms of what dollars come down the pipe in terms of service industry and whether its WIC, or Head start, or Child Development, whatever social services there are out there; not to say that that isn’t an important role for the CAPS to play, it certainly is, but I think that there is a huge role for CAPS to play in engaging the community in issues and dialogue and helping communities to come to find ways in which they can contribute to the resolution of issues, or move issues forward, or advocating to have certain kinds of things addressed, and not to do to people, but to work with people.

The third related to PROP’s Board of Director’s interpretation of the mission of Community Action -

The Agency would better serve its constituency if it could effectively increase the engagement of the greater community -- if it could generate and build social capital around community issues that adversely affected low-income people.

4. Does the choice of the social capital building model make any difference to the outcome?

Based on the two models attempted by PROP during this study, it appears that the model selected for CAA involvement will not impact the outcomes. Whether the Agency engages an existing group, or works with interested residents to form a group, doesn’t appear to matter in terms of agency engagement.

With regard to the original ‘second model’ – that being, the agency identifies a topic and generates the citizen interest; we cannot speak to this model since it has not yet been attempted. However, as already noted, the Agency is committed to attempting and testing this model with existing low-income constituents.

An additional observation relates to the suggested role of the Community Action Agency with the group – should it assume and active or a passive role?

The answer to this question, based on PROP’s experience to-date, indicates that there is a need for the agency to play a dual role – that at times it needs to be passive, and at other times it needs to be more assertive in its role in the group.

Finally, what is the most appropriate role for a Community Action Agency to take with a citizen group?

PROP has demonstrated that the role the CAA chooses to play can alternate between partner and leader. In both instances under study, at initiation, PROP used a very low-key approach – it assumed a ‘behind the scenes’ supportive role.

With Frenchtown, which welcomed the Agency to its efforts with expectations that such a relationship would benefit their ability to meet their mission, as group acceptance of the Agency grew (trust and reciprocity), PROP was successful at initiating activities for the group, and in taking a leadership role when it appeared necessary to keep the organization moving toward its goals. It was able to accomplish this without negative consequence in terms of its relationship with the group.

When asked if he could recollect any of the major steps or activities that he undertook that really jump-started the project, the Community Organizer noted:

My first thought was to get into the group and establish a one-on-one relationship with the members and get to know their activities and what they were doing. At that point, I was relying on them to identify activities, and then I would support those activities. What became a concern of mine was the pace at which these things were happening.

I think over time -- certainly by summer -- I started being more upfront with ideas and suggestions; and quicker to say we ought to do this, and we ought to do that, and actually in August we planned and by September we had a retreat, which was my idea. I did all the arrangements and organization and brought people together. So, I would say in terms of my thinking and how I got involved – starting out it was definitely support, and almost at an arms length role, and it became that I was more willing to put myself out there. As I did it more and more over time, people became comfortable and were OK with that, and I tried to be very upfront with who I was and what my role was, you know, that I was with PROP and if that wasn’t OK for me to do that, then just let me know.

However, the Organizer was careful to explain:

Anything that happens goes through the group - any idea or activity is only suggested by anyone in the group. We might say something like “what do you think about the idea of a community garden,” and I think that its up to them to pick up the ball and go with my and PROP’s help or not.

The Watch Group also recognized PROP’s leadership role with appreciation. The President noted:

They helped us through low points; they give us a certain internal energy that gives us the impedance that has kept us going. Without it we wouldn’t be anywhere near where we are today.

Another member of the Watch Group Board noted:

At PROP’s urging and guidance we are planning a day of re-evaluating our schemes and our goals. I think this meeting is going to be extraordinary I really think its going to help us.

The Director of Community Initiatives addressed this issue by stating:

I guess my expectation, as it began, was that PROP was going to be more in a role of providing help. The evolution seemed very natural, because I don’t think that the group distinguished us any differently from any other group member, and in fact they embraced us as a group member. …. I think there becomes an imbalance of power in the relationship if you don’t become a part time participant in the group. I think that there is still an expectation and a look to us for some sort of expertise. I certainly get that from the groups, but I also think that there is much more balance of power in being a participant than being a helper.

I think when you do this kind of work you can’t do the work well unless you fully engage.

I think you have to become as fully engaged in the group as you want the group to become in an issue. The intentions are not to force your ideas or expectations on the group and I think that that is a very difficult balance. Another one of those skills is knowing when to push and when not to push.

It appears the Agency is willing to move to a passive supportive role, or to a leadership role, as circumstances dictate. Both roles have demonstrated success and acceptance.

With the Tenants Union, the Agency is, at this time, admittedly assuming a passive partnership role. And, from interviews with organizing committee members, it appears that this is the role it wishes the Agency to assume at this time.

Spin-Off Benefits / Results

PROP identified additional benefits to result from its engagement in the social capital building initiative in Frenchtown. Over the past year, based primarily on its involvement with the Watch Group, the Agency has worked with the neighborhood and the City of Westbrook to plan and undertake a neighborhood revitalization project. PROP’s role in the project will be to purchase, remodel, rehabilitate, and construct new housing in the neighborhood. They will then work with low and mixed income families to assist them with the purchase and management of the properties.

The Agency is of the opinion that their involvement in the Watch Group resulted in their greater interest in the neighborhood, a better understanding of its needs, and a more comprehensive approach and investment in its redevelopment.

Summary of Findings / Observations

· Although the Agency was unable, within the timeframe of this grant, to complete its investigation of its proposed second model, it was able to engage two organizations of citizens in social capital building efforts, and it was able to develop information on social capital development that may be of interest to Community Action Agencies.

· Key factors for CAA’s interested in building social capital might include:

o That a change in focus from that of service provider to advocate is desirable, and is enhanced when endorsed by the Agency’s Board of Directors.

o The activities involved in actively assisting groups in building social capital are sufficient to warrant a dedicated position (even half time).

o Effective social capital building efforts are built around an identified critical community issue / need

o Effective social capital building activities engage three population segments to the issue – the public sector, the private sector, the community (residents).

o Successful engagement of the three population segments appears to hinge on their ability to recognize opportunities for reciprocity – that their investment of time and effort will result in a benefit to those involved (power, change, reward, etc)

· Based upon PROP’s working definition, it appears that:

o The presence and strength of social capital can be measured

o Social capital can be strengthened through the intervention of a Community Action Agency

o Changes in the strength of social capital can be quantified

· Community Action Agencies can be appropriate and effective at building social capital

· The role the CAA chooses to play can alternate between supportive partner and that of leader

· That involvement in building social capital may identify opportunities for further involvement and positive action by CAA’s in neighborhood rehabilitation

Recommendations

We have developed the following recommendations for consideration by both PROP and OCS as a result of this study

· We encourage PROP to continue to administer the instruments developed during this study at appropriate points in time, as it continues with its social capital building efforts. We believe the scales not only identify changes in the strength of social capital characteristics, but also will assist the Agency in identifying activities it can undertake to continuously improve upon its interventions with citizen groups.

· We recommend a re-administration of the Organization Assessment Scale, including the pre portion of the scale, to the Portland Tenants Union to determine if their further involvement with PROP, once engaged in activities designed to further the group’s objectives, might not alter their initial view of their social capital strength. We hypothesize that the pre score might drop upon re-administration, as participants realize their initial perceptions of their organizational characteristics were somewhat overstated.

· We encourage PROP to proceed with the development of the so-called ‘second model’ of social capital building – that is, the initiation of low-income constituent advocacy groups focused on community and social change. The experience of developing this model may uncover additional information that Community Action Agencies may find helpful in the fulfillment of their ‘Community Coordination’ roles – including the activities of - citizen participation, neighborhood and community organization, information and referrals. Since 94% of all Community Action Agencies from across the nation report being engaged in such activities, new knowledge around this topic might have significant impact on how CAA’s conduct these activities in the future.

Citations and References

Bourdieu and Coleman, (1980). In: Evaluating the national outcomes: program outcomes for communities. Cooperative State Research, Education, Extension Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, and the Cooperative Extension Service, University of Arizona [On-Line]. Available: (http://ag.arizona.edu/fcr/fs/nowg/rd_litrev.html)

Bullen and Onyx (1998). Measuring Social Capital in Five Communities in NSW: Overview of a Study. [On-Line]. Available: (http://mapl.com.au/A2.htm)

Coleman & Hoffer, 1987. In: Strengthening Neighborhoods by Developing Community Networks, Morrison, Howard, Johnson, Navarro, Plachetka and Bell. In - Community Building Renewal, Well-Being, and Shared Responsibility, NASW Press, Washington, D.C., 1998.

Ewalt, P., Freeman, E. & Poole, D. (Eds). Community Building: Renewal, Well-Being, and Shared Responsibility. NASW Press, Washington, D.C., 1998.

Informal education encyclopedia , [On-Line]. Available: www.infed.org

Kretzmann, J. & McKnight, J. Building Communities from Inside Out: A Path Toward Funding and Mobilizing a Community=s Assets. ACTA Publications, Chicago, Il., 1993.

Kreuter & Lezin, 1997. In - Evaluating the national outcomes: program outcomes for communities. Cooperative State Research, Education, Extension Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, and the Cooperative Extension Service, University of Arizona [On-Line]. Available: (http://ag.arizona.edu/fcr/fs/nowg/rd_litrev.html)

Krishna and Shrader (1999). A paper prepared for the Conference on Social Capital and Poverty Reduction, The World Bank, Washington, D.C., June, 1999.

Moore, H., & Puntenney, D. Leading By Stepping Back: A Guide For City Officials On Building

Neighborhood Capacity. ACTA Publications, Chicago, Il., 1999.

National Association of Community Action Agencies. [On-Line]. Available at: (http:// www.nacaa.org/)

National Community Action Foundation. [On-Line]. Available at: http://www.ncaf.org/

Putnam, R. Bowling Alone: America’s Declining Social Capital. Current, Jun 95, Issue 373.

Potapchuk, W., Crocker, J. Exploring the Elements of Civic Capital. National Civic Review, Fall 99, V. 88.

Wallis, A., Crocker, J., Schecter, B. Social Capital in Community Building, Part One. National Civic Review, Fall 98, V. 87.

Wallis, A., Crocker, J., Schecter, B. Social Capital in Community Building, Part Two. National Civic Review, Winter 98, V. 87.

You know of a neighborhood group called the Frenchtown Neighborhood Watch	1 2 3 4 5
You are aware of the Neighborhood Watch group activities	1 2 3 4 5
You have a clear idea as to why the Neighborhood Watch was created	1 2 3 4 5
The Neighborhood Watch was created over concerns about neighborhood crime	1 2 3 4 5
The Neighborhood Watch was created over concerns about Andy’s Tavern	1 2 3 4 5
The Neighborhood Watch has succeeded in accomplishing its objectives to-date	1 2 3 4 5
The Watch Group accurately represents your neighborhood interests and concerns	1 2 3 4 5
The Neighborhood Watch Group is no longer necessary	1 2 3 4 5
Your neighborhood has problems / issues that need to be addressed	1 2 3 4 5
You believe positive changes can be made in the neighborhood	1 2 3 4 5
Residents working together are more effective than individuals working alone on neighborhood issues	1 2 3 4 5
The Frenchtown Watch Group is effective at getting neighborhood issues addressed	1 2 3 4 5
A new group would be more effective at addressing neighborhood issues	1 2 3 4 5

Executive Summary

A. Study Purpose

B. Study Questions

¨ PROP, as a Community Action Agency, could effectively strengthen social capital efforts within an existing neighborhood organization; and

¨ Effectively build (create) social capital around an agency identified issue?

D. Sampling and Study Participants

E. Key Findings / Observations

G. Recommendations

Introduction

Support for Social Change Through the Building of Social Capital

Community Action

Social Capital

PROP’s Definition – Social Capital

The overall question investigated by PROP was:

¨ Can PROP, as a Community Action Agency, effectively strengthen social capital efforts within an existing neighborhood organizations; and

¨ Can PROP effectively build (create) social capital around an agency identified issue?

More specifically, can PROP affect measurable change, and be identified as the change agent, for each of the conditions it identified as evidence of social capital, namely, that:

¨ There will be an identifiable, working stakeholder group of residents focused on a community need / issue

¨ There will be evidence that the group has access to community policy-makers / decision- makers

And, based on these conditions,

1. Can we measure the level of social capital existing in each of the models as of the start of this study?

¨ What were the key factors that contributed to the success or failure of PROP’s social capital building efforts?

¨ What level of commitment to the process was required to meet PROP’s outcome objectives?

¨ Does it appear that targeting social capital building and strengthening is an appropriate activity for a Community Action Agency?

¨ Does the choice of the social capital building model make any difference to the outcome?

Methodology

Qualitative Methodology

Constant Comparative Method of Analysis

Validity and Reliability

Frenchtown Neighborhood Watch - Neighborhood Data Collection Survey

1. Can we measure the level of social capital existing in each of the models as of the start of this study?

1 2 3 4 5

The average (mean) pre score calculated to a 3.5.

One member of the Tenants Union organizing committee noted, with regard to the high score assigned to the characteristic presented as: An identifiable working group of residents focused on community needs / issues, that:

We should not consider the Tenants Union scale as a post PROP intervention score because the Agency has not yet had an opportunity to work in any capacity other than as a participant in the activities designed to organize the group.

Additional Questions

There were several additional questions that arose during the course of this study. They included:

1. What were the key factors that contributed to the success or failure of PROP’s social capital building efforts?

2. What level of commitment to the process was required to meet PROP’s outcome objectives?

3. Does it appear that targeting social capital building and strengthening is an appropriate activity for a Community Action Agency?

According to PROP’s Community Initiatives Director, there are a number of reasons why social capital building activities fit with the Community Action Agency mission.

4. Does the choice of the social capital building model make any difference to the outcome?

Summary of Findings / Observations

Recommendations

Organizational Assessment

Gain acceptance to record session