Applying Social Capital Theory to Needs Assessment, Social Program Development, and Evaluation: A...

Applying Social Capital Theory to Needs Assessment, Social Program Development, andEvaluation: A Practitioner's PerspectiveAuthor(s): Steve JohnsonSource: Administrative Theory & Praxis, Vol. 21, No. 1 (Mar., 1999), pp. 12-22Published by: M.E. Sharpe, Inc.Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/25611324 .

Accessed: 09/06/2014 16:35

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

M.E. Sharpe, Inc. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Administrative Theory&Praxis.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 195.34.78.42 on Mon, 9 Jun 2014 16:35:00 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=mes

http://www.jstor.org/stable/25611324?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


APPLYING SOCIAL CAPITAL THEORY TO NEEDS ASSESSMENT, SOCIAL PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT, AND EVALUATION: A PRACTITIONER S PERSPECTIVE

Steve Johnson_

Portland State University

ABSTRACT

What

is the utility of the concept of social capital? The quest for illusive social capital may not be for the practitioner to find the single culprit responsible for a decline in social capital or

civic engagement, or to ponder too long if this generation is less involved than the previously generation. It may be more appropriate to consider social capital as a continuously waxing and

waning phenomena that can be built upon or destroyed. In this article I have first outlined the

practitioner and academic dialogue about social capital in terms of how it can be measured. I hold that if we can agree to reliable ways of measuring social capital at the community level, it may have

utility in program development and evaluation. I argue that its usefulness may be both in social

program development and evaluation, as well developing and evaluating programs, that are not

directly social programs, that either unintentionally build or undermine community.

INTRODUCTION

In looking back over my past twenty five years of

experience in community development work it is sometimes disconcerting how often I have altered

concepts central to my work in order to suit the times. It is one thing to alter one's thinking in response to new

social concepts, or well thought-out public policy insights, it is quite another matter to adjust one's

approach simply because it is popular and eye-catching to funding sources. Would a proposal from twenty five

years ago, that used Alinsky-style terms of empower ment, or phrases like community self-reliance or

community self-help, still "sell" as quickly as one using the term "social capital"?

The quickly rising interest in social capital has also illuminated for me the conceptual passageway between

academics and practitioners. As a practitioner and now

a doctoral candidate in an urban planning program, I am

intrigued by how the concepts are passed, sometimes

artfully, sometimes awkwardly, between academics and

practitioners. At what point does a merely scholarly debate become usable, and fundable, in the practi tioner's milieu? At what point does a practitioner's

experience shed theoretical insight on a scholarly debate? It is with these two questions in mind that I

enter the debate about social capital.

The phrase social capital crops up everywhere. On

my desk, a call for papers for the 29th annual meeting of the Urban Affairs Association (UAA), includes most of the popular catch phrases in the field: The Social Reconstruction of the City: Social Capital and Commu

nity Building. When Putnam raced onto front stage, using the concept of social capital to explain the strange disappearance of civic democracy, it was, as Heying (1997) notes, a tour de force. Social capital was thrust into the public dialogue as an explanation for most every social phenomena from the rise of juvenile delinquency to the fall of the Soviet Union. The term social capital as Foley and Edwards said, has taken on the property of a gas, "expanding or contracting to fit the analytic space afforded it by each historical or socio-political setting" (Foley & Edwards, 1996, p. 42).

Is it faddish pretense? Is the changing lexicon just a different way to describe the same old phenomena?

Would the title of the UAA conference be substantively different if we substituted "social fabric" or "self-help" for social capital? Is social capital quantifiably or

qualitatively different than talking about the social fabric or social glue that binds us? Why are these catchy

phrases important, and more specific for the purposes of

this paper, does this newest buzzword in community

development add to the repertoire of social organizing tools something that can be practically employed in real work?

12 Administrative Theory & Praxis March 1999, Vol 21, No. 1



I was initially attracted to the social capital litera ture because of its potential utility in helping me acquire a better understanding of how to create and sustain

community building activities. But I have been disap pointed on at least two levels. At a conceptual level, the social capital literature does not do enough to clarify what social capital is-how to know it when we see it; how to do something to build or rebuild it, if it isn't

present. At a practical level, the literature doesn't shed

enough light on how you can measure and thus use, social capital, as an instrument to create communal

identity and undertake communal action.

It should also be noted that social capital theory, thanks in large part to Putnam's work, is inextricably linked to discussions about civic engagement and more

generally civil society. In this article I accept that

linkage, assuming that while not all social programs have explicit civil society objectives, in social capital terms, all social programs in some measure effect levels of civic engagement or the health of civil society.

SOCIAL CAPITAL AND THE PROBLEM OF MEASUREMENT

The original definitions of social capital, and elaborate iterations by other academics do not always help. For example, the term social capital was first used

by Bourdieu and Coleman in the 1980s. Bourdieu defined social capital as "the sum of the resources, actual or virtual, that accrue to an individual or group by virtue of possessing a durable network of more or less institutionalized relations of mutual acquaintance and recognition" (Bourdieu & Wacquant, 1992, p. 19). Coleman's definition adds a mysterious or fuzzy quality to social capital. According to Coleman, social capital is not human capital, anymore than it is economic

capital. "It is present," he said, "and yet not tangible, in all social interactions." Social capital, according to

Coleman, "comes about through changes in the relations

among persons that facilitate action. If physical capital is wholly tangible, being embodied in observable

material form, and human capital is less tangible, being embodied in the skills and knowledge acquired by an

individual, social capital is less tangible yet, for it exists in the relations among persons" (Coleman, 1988, p. S98).

Social capital is difficult to measure because,, according to Coleman, it is a by-product of social interaction. He argued that because the benefits of action that bring social capital into being are largely experi

enced by persons other than the actor, it is often not in that person's interest to bring it into being. "The result", he said, "is that most forms of social capital are created or destroyed as by-products of other activities. Social

capital therefore can arise or disappear without anyone willing it into or out of being" (Coleman, 1988 p. SI 18). The actor or actors who generate social capital ordinarily capture only a small part of its benefits. The

capital circulates in a community, among family, friends and acquaintances, without much accounting of its loss or gain. It is a form of public good with a high potential for free riders.

Putnam defines social capital as "networks, norms, and trust-that enable participants to act together more

effectively to pursue shared objectives" (Putnam, 1996, p. 34). The actions or objectives of social capital can be

political, social or economic. One of Putnam's central

premises is that one can assess the health of a civil

society, the levels and types of civic engagement, by examining elements of social capital in the relationships between people.

There is a general consensus that social capital is rich in small communities where the norm is face-to face communication, stability, and socio-economic or class division is weakest. Coleman contends that modern urbanized society has a smaller treasury of social

capital. He assumes that traditional smaller communities were richer in social capital. Put somewhat differently, these communities had what he called "social closure," that is, conditions where expectations, obligations and norms are dedicated to an equitable balance of payments between actors. He argues that if "tight communities where natural forms of social capital arose and were nurtured are now in decline in urbanized society, then we will need to create substitutional social forms to build social capital" (Coleman 1988, p. 118).

Coleman places trust at the center of his social

capital thesis. He contends that the obligations, expecta tions and trustworthiness of social structures is what facilitates social capital. A group, he says, within which there is extensive trustworthiness and extensive trust, is able to accomplish much more than a comparable group without that trustworthiness and trust.

Trust is an essential element of the social norms that allow for economic transactions. Trust, according to

Fukuyama is "the expectation that arises within a

community or regular, honest, and cooperative behav

JOHNSON/Applying Social Capital Theory to Needs Assessment, Social Program Development, and Evaluation 13



ior, based on commonly shared norms, on the part of other members of that community" (Fukuyama, 1995, p. 26). Fukuyama's premise is that trust facilitates

capitalist enterprise because it lowers the transaction costs associated with bargaining, contracts, and monitor

ing. "A nation's well-being as well as its ability to

compete is conditioned by a single pervasive cultural

characteristic, the level of trust" (Fukuyama, 1995, p. 7).

The current state of politics has often been assessed

by reference to the declining levels of trust in govern ment. Polls consistently reflect a growing gap between

citizens and government, and reflect a social environ ment of mistrust. For example, the portion of Ameri cans who trust government in Washington, DC only some or not at all has risen from 30% in 1966 to 75% in 1992 (Putnam, 1995).

In measuring trust, a problem of scale crops up. Can we measure trust in a global urban society in the same way we might within a tighter, more reciprocal, face-to-face community? Putnam examines the GSS data about trust crossed-tabbed by residential character and finds little difference in trust levels between cities, towns, rural areas or suburbs. But, in an increasingly

global society we may need a more detailed nomencla

ture for trust. The trust I feel for (or not) about my

neighbor might not be the same affective social capital

catalyst that is needed to act within a global society to

meet social, political, or economic goals. The concepts of "thick trust" and "thin trust" may be useful for

measuring trust.

While trust is central to any discussion of social

capital, and its presence or deficiency dictates the

availability of social capital, other factors also permeate the discussion about social capital. In several of Put

nam's (Putnam, 1993; 1995; 1996) contributions to

social capital literature, he is seeking to pinpoint the

culprit that has caused what he sees as declining social

capital and civic engagement in America. While that

approach has its beneficial social science outcomes, from a practitioner's point of view, being aware of the numerous factors effecting the development of social

capital is more clearly useful for community building.

Finding out that the lead culprit for the decline of social

capital may be television (Putnam's choice), may only lead to media reform or more "Kill Your Television

Set" bumper stickers. But, understanding multiple factors that at any time may affect the social capital

treasury, including television, can be useful in the

development of social programs.

The factors in the development of social capital are

intertwined. For example, the fact that women have entered the workplace and changed their place in the

home, potentially resulting in a dramatic change in time available for social capital building or civic engagement activities, can not be assessed in isolation from other factors (Heying, 1997). While women have left the home for the workplace, it maybe that women build social capital, or are involved in the community in new

ways through their work and work-related social net

working, that represents not a decline in social capital or

civic engagement activities, but a shift in the context and means of involvement.

Education

Putnam argues that education is by far the strongest correlate of civic engagement in all its forms, including social trust and membership in many different types of

groups (Putnam, 1995). But, in looking at education data from a historical perspective, the fact that educated

people (particularly those who are college-educated) usually have been more involved in civil society, only deepens the mystery of the "disappearance of civil

society." With the increase in education levels in the last

twenty years, there should have been a rise in civic

engagement by at least 15-20%. But, instead, using GSS

data, Putnam demonstrates that there has been a decline of civic engagement regardless of education levels. "Civic engagement," he says, "has eroded among one in

every twelve Americans who have enjoyed the advan

tages of graduate study; and it has eroded among one in

every eight Americans who did not even make it into

high school" (Putnam 1995, p. 37).

Changing Women's Status at Home and Workplace

As Putnam notes, women's changing status in the

workforce is one of the most fundamental social and

economic changes in this country in the last half of this

century. The role that the changing status of women in

the household and the work place has had over the last

several decades on social capital and civic engagement is a puzzling one for Putnam. While he contends it

undoubtedly has had some effect on the over all trends

of social capital and civic engagement, the results are

ambiguous. For example, comparisons of time budget data between 1965 and 1985 seems to show that em

ployed women as a group are actually spending more




time on organizations than before, while non-employed women are spending less (Robinson & Godbey, 1995). Putnam concludes that while the changing role of

women's status in home and workplace has had some

effect on social capital and civic engagement, the over

all decline can not be explained by this factor alone.

However, as Heying notes, the immensity of the change of women in the workforce and home creates "interac

tive, recursive, and cascading affects on women, men, and social systems" (Heying, 1997. p. 659).

Changes in Family Structure and Martial Status

Changes in family structure and martial status must

come to the foreground in any historical assessment of

social capital and civic engagement. There is no doubt

that a significant shift in marital status and family make

up has occurred in the last few decades. Since 1950 the

incidence of one-person households has more than

doubled. The proportion of all American adults who are

currently unmarried climbed from 28% in 1974 to 48% in 1994. How does that relate to levels of social capital and civic engagement? The GSS data reveals that

married men and women are about a third more trusting and belong to about 15-25 % more groups than compara ble single men and women, although widows and

widowers are more like married people than single

people in this comparison. Putnam concludes that some

part of the decline in successful marriage is a signifi cant, though modest part of the reason for declining trust and lower group membership (Putnam, 1995).

Economic Relationships

Job insecurity due to global shifts might also be

examined, but as Putnam (1996) notes the verdict isn't clear if too much work or job insecurity directly effects levels of social capital activities and civic engagement. Not enough time plays out well as an excuse, but not so

clearly as a measurable deficiency that translates into less social capital and civic engagement building activi ties. However, the perception of busyness or powerless ness needs to be more explored, since it is one of the most often reported "excuses" for not being involved.

Others have taken social capital theorists to task for not taking into account underlying political economic realities. Galston, Portes and Landolt (1996) point out that it is not the lack of social capital, but the lack of

objective economic resources-beginning with decent

jobs-that underlies the plight of impoverished urban

groups. Even if strengthened social networks and

community participation could help overcome the

traumas of poverty, no one knows how to bring about

these results in a way that would shift fundamental

economic inequalities.

Socio-economic status, sometimes a proxy or

indistinguishable from effects of under-education, has an

effect on levels of civic engagement, so while social

capital strengths may be found in poor neighborhoods, economic resources may keep people from fruitfully using social capital, and from being involved in civic life.

Urban Design and Residential Patterns

In Putnam's analysis of social connectedness at the

national level he finds that "the downtrends in trusting and joining are virtually identically everywhere-in cities, big and small, in suburbs, in small towns, and in the countryside" (Putnam, 1996, p. 38). He finds little

proof for the popular assumption that moving to the suburbs either isolates one from traditional forms of social capital and civic engagement, or that the suburbs

tend to attract people who want to retreat to family life and less community life. In fact he contends some

evidence may show a slight tendency in the other direction.

Contrary to Putnam's findings, Berman (1997)

points to the privatization of security, walled communi

ties, and reflexive, internally focused home owner

associations, as examples of internally focused social

capital building interests that may not have an overall

positive effect in a community or beyond, on social

capital building.

Minkoff (1997) has pointed out the importance of

public sphere operatives for social capital development, saying that the public sphere is a critical part of civil

society including a broad array of institutions and public meeting places that promote open discussions.

Historical Period Effects

Putnam also examines period effects including the

growth of the welfare state. As he notes "slum clear ance" policies of the 1950s and 1960s replaced physical capital, but destroyed social capital, by disrupting existing community ties. We might group these effects as indirect government policies that effect social capital and civic engagement levels. The affects would be difficult to measure, since as with slum clearance, the




affect was not an expected consequence or later much accounted for in outcomes. The social capital outcome as Coleman would say was an indirect by-product of the social policy.

As Sirianni & Friedland (1995) point out, correlat

ing just size of government and levels of civic engage ment may overlook ways that government has played a

major role in facilitating new forms of civic engage ment. This leaves us with the need to be more precise in

determining what elements of government policies effect civil society, indirectly and inadvertently, as in the case of "urban renewal" and what policies have deliberately attempted to empower citizens, and overtly and posi tively affected effected levels of civic engagement and social capital building. The methodological approach of the National Citizen Participation Development Project, that included intensive case studies, interviews and

surveys of cities with weak, and cities with strong civic

participation programs, provides a comprehensive, although expensive and time consuming, way to study the effects of deliberative government civic participation programs on social capital and civic engagement levels over time (Berry et al., 1993).

WHAT ASSOCIATIONS OR INSTITUTIONS CREATE SOCIAL CAPITAL?

Beyond what kind of variables and patterns of

reciprocity were involved in the creation of social

capital, it would be useful to know what kinds of institutions and /or associations make a significant contribution in this regard. Alexis de Tocqueville (de

Tocqueville, 1840) perceived that the US had a breadth and depth of group participation unmatched elsewhere. He understood that American democracy could not

flourish unless citizens continued to participate actively, joining with others of like mind and interest to address common needs. He grasped clearly that the American form of democracy was dependent on their being a rich associational life.

But, exactly what associations should we include in an analysis of social capital and civic engagement? Putnam focuses on the non-political associational base of

society because he thinks that dense, but segregated horizontal networks sustain cooperation within each

group. In order to foster a genuine spirit of "wider

cooperation," Putnam's argument suggests, associations that count on social capital building must not be "polar ized" or "politicized." They must "bridge" social and

political divisions and thus, presumably be autonomous

from political forces.

For Putnam (1996), the chief virtue of what he calls civil associations lies in their capacity to socialize

participants into the "norms of generalized reciprocity" and "trust" that are essential components of the social

capital needed for effective cooperation. Civil associa tions provide the "networks of civic engagement" within

which reciprocity is learned and enforced, trust is

generated, and communication and patterns of collective action are facilitated.

Berman (1997) sees weakness in Putnam's (1996) reliance on the non-political associations as a basis for

defining civil health in a society. She points to the

history of Germany between the great wars when subcultures emerged that were subversive to civil

society. She argues, that "the neo-Tocquevillian scholars mistake comes in assuming that collective endeavors and activities skills are good things in and of themselves, without regard to the purposes to which they will be directed" (Berman, 1997, p. 565).

Wood (1997) argues that social capital without a

pointer to democratic or social service actions is weak. Wood contends that the current analysis which views social capital as a democratic strength is only true when connected explicitly to democratic organi zing-organizing that often includes more, rather, than less conflict.

We need also to take into account Sirianni and Friedland's (1995) emphasis on civic innovations that have emerged in the same period (1960-current), while Putnam declares that there has been a decline in civic

engagement. Sirianni points out that the complexity of

social, political, and economic issues has also shaped a new form of response, and that the complexity of issues has been accompanied by new forms of civic collabora tions. For example, problems like non-point pollution can not be well solved by regulatory procedures, but can

best be solved by collaborations across sectors and between citizens and government. Sirianni maintains

that as the cases of civic environmentalism and commu

nity development show, we cannot assume that pre

existing stocks of social capital could have served as an

adequate foundation for building capacities in new and more complex problem arenas.

We can also examine new forms of organizations or

changes in existing civic organizations that reflect cross

16 Administrative Theory & Praxis March 1999, Vol. 21, No. 1



boundary organizing or other signs that associations are

seeking ways to counter the older forms of self interest

focused organizing principles. For example, mature

community development corporations have been diversi

fying their activities through more holistic approaches to

community-building, and now tackle areas such as drug

problems, crime, elder and youth services, family day care networks, environmental hazards, urban reforesta

tion, health, and teen pregnancy.

Skcopol (1996) points out that associations may die not just because of the "wrong sorts of individual traits

proliferating in the population, but also because opportu nities and cultural models for that association, or type of

organization, wither in the larger society and polity." An association may also decline because the defection of

crucial types of leaders or members makes the enter

prise less resourceful and relevant for others. Skcopol provides examples of new forms of associations such as

ad hoc community problem solving organizations, churches that are recreating themselves with multiple types of committee work, episodic civic activity, such as

groups that form to further or limit legal rights (i.e., the

massive effort in California among motorcycle owners

who opposed helmet laws) (Skocpol, 1996).

Putnam (1996) argues that national political organi zations like the Sierra Club, which he refers to as

a"tertiary political association," although highly signifi cant in political (and commercial) terms, are not indica tors of social connectedness, because members do not often meet face-to-face. Members' ties are to common

symbols and ideologies, but not to each other.

By contrast, Minkoff (1997) argues that tertiary political associations reflect the growth of a stable sector of national social movement organizations and reflects a significant change in how collective identities are constructed and collective action is implemented. She

argues that social movement organizations play a critical role in civil society and in the production of social

capital by providing an infrastructure for collective

action, facilitating the development of mediated collec tive identifies that link otherwise marginalized members of society, and shaping public discourse and debate

(Minkoff, 1997).

Institutional analysis of social capital focuses on social relationships developed through institutions. The

relationship we have to each other, and to our variable definitions of community, formed by religious, educa

tional, economic, and civic institutions, is of central

importance in understanding social capital. But the

relationship is not simple. At one level it would seem a

community rich in institutions might be rich in social

capital. For example, it might seem obvious that a

community with more religious institutions, and mem

bership in those institutions, would be a community rich in social capital. But, this is not necessarily so. An institution may focus on social capital building activities that increases trust, reciprocity and social network

connections among its members at the expense of the

larger community. If we were to map communities by the number of religious institutions, or schools or civic

organizations, or by membership in those institutions, it would not necessarily help us determine which commu

nities had an abundance of social capital.

Again, it might seem simple at first glance to

examine levels of organizational volunteerism to under stand the level of social capital in a community. In fact,

Greeley (1997), among others, believe that the appropri ate dependent variables to measure in determining whether there is a decline in civic and social responsibil ity, are behaviors which enhance the general welfare.

He feels the more appropriate measure is to examine

society's rates of volunteering. When he examined international data concerning rates of volunteering, he found that the USA, in comparison to other industrial ized countries has a high rate, and that religion is (at least potentially) a powerful and enduring source of social capital in this country. But, as Greeley admitted

(1997), others argue that even volunteerism, this seem

ingly pure altruistic behavior, needs to be closely examined to understand the dynamics of social capital building. The motives for volunteering vary according to the individual and the institutional or organizational context. Also, the transformative nature of the action itself may have more or less outcomes in terms of social

capital

MAKING SOCIAL CAPITAL USEFUL TO PRACTITIONERS

It is time to return to my original question: How can we measure the impact of government programs and

politics in creating, strengthening and maintaining the

capacity for communal action and identity? One route to achieve this is to modify existing social program mea surement techniques, such as government performance techniques. We can also create standard social capital

measurement techniques. At the national level the National Commission on Civic Renewal has suggested




one set of measurements it refers to as INCH, the Index

of National Civic Health (Bennett & Nun, 1998). Lastly, we can conduct comprehensive social capital surveys of

populations that replicate in part those portions of the GSS data that get to the heart of a community's social

capital treasury.

Measuring the Performance of Local Government in Building Social Capital and Civic Engagement

Can we examine government policies in a more

precise manner to determine the policy effects on social

capital and civic engagement? One fairly well developed method, at least for municipal governments, is the civic

index, and the concept of civic infrastructure developed by the national Civic League (NCL) (National Civic

League, 1993).

The NCL uses the concept of civic infrastructure as

a way to measure social or civic capacity of a commu

nity, and as a part of the application process for the Ail

American City Award Program. In the NCL's municipal assessment there are eight civic infrastructure elements.

While the NCL's application process is more anecdotal or qualitative than quantitative, the NCL's questions do

present possible quantitative study boundaries. Their

categories are: citizen participation, community leader

ship, government performance, volunteerism and

philanthropy, inter group relations, civic education,

community information sharing, capacity for coopera tion and consensus-building, community vision and

pride, and inter-community cooperation. Many of the

questions within the categories used for the application process reflect important but perhaps fuzzy social capital

premises, with a strong emphasis on collaboration,

including the following: How visible and active are

neighborhood and civic groups? Is there active leader

ship from all three sectors (public, private and non

profit)? Do they work well together? Do government and business work closely with nonprofits? Do local

programs encourage and honor volunteers? Does the

community promote communication among diverse

groups? Are schools teaching citizenship and civic

responsibility? Do youth participate in community activities? Are there opportunities for adults to acquire the skills and tools necessary to participate in civic

affairs? Do community leaders have regular opportuni ties to share ideas?

The NCL civic awards are based on good stories

more than on quantitative assessments of municipal

performance or government-to- citizen relationships.

However, the categories and the related questions do

represent possible measurements for civic engagement and related social capital or civic infrastructural

strengths.

Government Performance, and Citizen Satisfaction Surveys

Another set of methods for evaluating government policy that might bear fruit for measuring social capital are government performance studies, Benchmark

programs, and citizen satisfaction surveys. Government

performance measurement studies are a well established method for evaluating government services. While all of the types of government performance measurements

might be used to measure social capital and civic

engagement, it is the outcome /effectiveness measures

that best reflect our search for social capital and civic

engagement measurements. If the appropriate bench

marks or indicators were selected for measurement, a

government's performance based on social capital or

civic engagement goals might be measured and com

pared with other communities. There are clearly differ ences between government agencies when it comes to

measuring social capital and civic outcomes. Some

human service bureaus might have goals that could be

easily translated as social capital goals. Other govern ment units, such as neighborhood and citizen involve ment agencies would also have goals that would be

relatively easy to measure. On the other hand, a trans

portation agency's goals might be measured by how

many roads are built or potholes filled; the social capital indicators would be a secondary or indirect affect.

However, using a social capital framework to evaluate

the performance of these agencies should not be dis

missed. After all, as Coleman (1988) said, most forms

of social capital are created or destroyed as by-products of other activities. Sometimes physical infrastructure

programs can have a tremendous impact on social

capital.

Citizen satisfaction assessments, sometimes accom

panying auditor's or citizen-driven government perfor mance surveys, are conducted by many cities around the

country. These measures are usually directly related to

government bureau functions. In some cases, measures

of these kind can be used as indicators of a community's civic capacity.

The City of Portland's Service Efforts & Accom

plishments: Report on City Government Performance

(Clark 1997) is a good example of a government perfor




mance report that includes a citizen satisfaction survey. In 1996 for the first time a general question that could be applied to measuring at least one element of social

capital and civic engagement was included. The question used was: "Did you spend any time in the past month

helping the community as a volunteer(without pay) either in connection with a group (such as the Red

Cross, a church, or going to a neighborhood association

meeting) or on your own (for example, helping a

neighbor or elderly person)? It further differentiated between volunteer hours in past month with a group and

volunteer hours in past month on your own" (p. A12).

National Index of Civil Society Health

The National Commission on Civic Renewal was

created and sustained through a grant from the Pew Charitable Trusts. It issued its first report on the health of America's civil society in June, 1998. In its final

report the Commission produced the National Index of

Civil Society Health. INCH is a report consisting of 22

trend-lines. The trend-lines are aggregated into five

categories. Each of the five categories are given equal weight:

Political Components (20 percent) is composed of: turnout (10 percent), and other political activities (10

percent), which comprises: signing a petition, writing to

Congress, attending rallies or speeches, working for a

political party, making a speech, writing an article,

writing a letter to the newspaper, belonging to a reform

group, and running for or holding political office (1.1

percent each). Trust (20 percent) is composed of: trust in others (10 percent), and confidence in the federal

government (10 percent). Membership (20 percent) is

composed of: membership in at least one group and/or church attendance (6.7 percent), charitable contributions

(6.7 percent), and Local participation (6.7 percent), which comprises: attending local meetings, serving on local committees, and serving as an officer of a local

group (2.2 percent each). Security Components (20 percent) is composed of: youth murderers per youth population (6.7 percent), fear of crime (6.7 percent), and survey-reported crime per population (6.7 per cent). Family Components (20 percent) is composed of: divorce (10 percent), and non-marital births (10 percent).

The INCH index is obviously designed to measure civil society at a national level, and while it misses

many nuances, and the aggregated categories might be

disputed, the Commission's index is useful in its sim

plicity, and in the relative ease of data sources that

might keep in current. However, the INCH index may be an example of what Foley and Edwards (1998) deplore about some uses of social capital that are too broad and sweeping to be useful. They contend that the

aggregations of data at this level blunts the value of social capital as an analytical tool because the model "must posit that all social capital is of equal value and

all brokering relationships provide equal access" (p. 2).

USING THE CONCEPT OF SOCIAL CAPITAL IN PRACTICE

If we can use existing performance measurement and evaluation tools to determine a community's trea

sury of social capital, the next question is: will it make a difference?

Perhaps by examining past or existing programs in

light of the concept of social capital we can perceive how our social or economic programs, while building economic or human capital, may diminish social capital. By conducting community needs assessments, with an

understanding of the underpinnings of social capital, we can understand inherent community strengths to build

upon, and weaknesses to take into account. By building social programs that make use of the inherent value of social capital, we may be able to make more efficient use of human and economic resources. A social capital perspective may also provide us a way to compliment traditional program evaluation methodology. But, a

social capital-based program evaluation will only make sense if we overtly acknowledge it in our original program development goals.

If we accept the premise that social capital is

developed or destroyed in all social interactions, and that creation, or at least preservation of, social capital, is important for a healthy civil society, then it may be

important to expand the boundaries of social agent responsibilities. Looking back at social programs, such as urban renewal and slum clearance, we may agree that while the programs met some physical or economic

goals, the programs undermined social capital. Does this tell us we need a kind of social capital impact statement; some way to assess programs that may have indirect

impacts on a community's ability to build or sustain its social capital?

It may be easiest to understand how to incorporate a social capital premise in programs with explicit social

goals, but what about programs that have an impact on

JOHNSON /Applying Social Capital Theory to Needs Assessment, Social Program Development, and Evaluation 19



social capital, but are not explicitly social programs?

For example, what if public transportation agencies had to meet social capital-like goals as well as solve

highway engineering problems? Will a new highway or

interchange expand or destroy public places, vital

institutions, or deplete social networks? Governance that relies on clear boundaries between responsibilities, by agency regulations and operating rules, does not make it easy to plan, propose, or fix budgets based on unin tentional outcomes.

We do recognize the value of incorporating relation

ships, and in effect working off of social capital treasur ies in a community in order to solve municipal prob lems. For example, many cities are faced with tremen dous bills for cleaning up storm water and sewage. A

government performance measurement for how well a

city is performing its storm water or sewage clean-up responsibility would likely focus on miles of pipe laid, or sewage treated; a neat, tidy closed system, "garbage in, hopefully, cleaned up, garbage out." But, as we learned with solid waste streams, recycling is only a

complete system if it begins with the producer of waste. Source separation, separation of "stuff" before it becomes garbage is an essential element of a compre hensive municipal recycling program. We are learning the same with storm drain and sewer systems. We can

calculate the impact in terms of building larger and

larger hard (pipes) systems, but how do we calculate the

impact of a social re-education strategy that lessens the

input? A similar example is found in comprehensive watershed health programs that use social capital, the

relationships between individuals, organizations and institutions in a watershed, to help create and implement solutions. However, since in many cases outcomes are

still measured in engineering terms, watershed steward

ship programs that employ social means to alter the costs of engineering solutions, are not as easy to defend, in part because we do not have adequate ways to quan

tify outcomes.

As Siranni and Friedland (1995) note, many civic innovations in the 1980s and 1990s depend on social

capital for implementation. Good neighbor contracts to

remedy hazardous dump siting issues, community

policing, collaborative learning communities with

increased parental involvement, and complex institu

tional collaborations such as the creation of watershed councils in the Northwest to work on salmon recovery

programs, all depend on social capital.

Putnam's (1996) use of social capital to examine civil society seems timely and appropriate. There is a

high level of mistrust between government and citizens. If Putnam's thesis has validity, then finding ways to

improve the health of civil society through directly or

indirectly building social capital demands close examina tion. The outcry about too much government interven tion and regulation may be answered in part by pro grams that build upon existing social capital: networks,

relationships, and community assets.

Also, the public and nonprofit sectors are being asked to do more with less, or in the case of govern ment, just do less. As noted earlier, Kretzman and

McKnight (1993) have eloquently called for creation of social programs that build upon community assets rather than needs. I would contend that this too is based on a

social capital premise: that we utilize existing support networks, community strengths or assets, to amplify limited resources and to reduce the reliance on social

programs that replace rather than amplify existing community resources.

In examining social capital as a community building strategy, we need to remain mindful of scale. As Coleman (1988) noted in his original definition of social

capital, it is more plentiful in small communities where one-to-one relations and reciprocity is balanced between individuals. In an urban setting we might find neighbor hoods where that level of intimacy remains in tact, but in many cases, the complexity of social problems, the

relationships between individuals through their institu tional or associational ties is not the same. Thick trust and thin trust may reside in various blends. It could be that if we only focused on building a neighborhood's social capital we run the risk of creating enclaves of

internally social capital-rich communities that position themselves against others with less social capital, and thus further exasperate social inequalities. Boyte et al.'s

(1996) thesis of understanding public work as conscious

working together to meet broader communal goals, and not just self interest, is important as a filter for imple menting social-capital based community building activi ties.

Can we untangle the intertwined key factors in

creating and maintaining social capital to see what elements might be strong or weak within a specific community or constituency? If for example, a neighbor hood had a high level of single working women, would the strategy for building social capital differ, and could




we through a baseline study of social capital, determine what factors need to be created or restored? From a social capital survey of primary factors, can we deter

mine social policy and design social programs, or even

knowing all that would we still be left with the same economic and social inequalities that building social

capital can not resolve? One of the most comprehensive survey tools developed for assessing a communities social capital was developed in Australia by the Center for Australian Community Organization and Manage ment (Bullen & Onyx, 1998). It is a well thought through program, and worthy of replication in different

settings. But, it is still too early to tell if exhaustive, and expensive, social capital surveys that provide detailed information about trust, social networks, and

reciprocity values are cost effective and useful as tools for shaping social programs. It is an area where aca demic guidance is essential if practical baseline surveys or continual measurement tools are employed in the field are to be ground in solid theory.

The methodological approach of the National Citizen Participation Development Project, that included intensive case studies, interviews and surveys of cities

with weak, and cities with strong civic participation programs, provides a comprehensive, although expen sive and time consuming, way to study the effects of deliberative government civic participation programs on social capital and civic engagement levels over time

(Berry et al., 1993).

The quest for illusive social capital may not be for the practitioner to find the single culprit responsible for a decline in social capital or civic engagement, or to

ponder too long if this generation is less involved than the previously generation. It may be more appropriate to consider social capital as a continuously waxing and

waning phenomena that can be built upon or destroyed. It's baseline is important to perceive. The multiple factors effecting social capital are always in play. The

practitioner's work is to build community within the

specific context of a community or constituency, using social capital measurements as a way of assessing assets and needs, and evaluating outcomes.

From a human development point of view, analyz ing civic education and civic opportunity in young people is a critical way to measure the strength of civil

society and social capital. From this perspective measur

ing levels of extracurricular activity, and service learn

ing opportunities, as well as assessing civics or social studies curriculum would be important.

We can also examine new forms of organizations or

changes in existing civic organizations that reflect cross

boundary organizing or other signs that associations are

seeking ways to counter the older forms of self interest focused organizing principles.

And finally, re-examining general citizen satisfac

tion, government performance audit methodologies, benchmark programs, and general municipal perfor mance programs like the NCL's Civic Award programs in light of social capital measurements may also be an

important way to understand government policy, as well as other social program's impact on social capital.

The key factor that will dictate social capital's eventual place in academic studies and the development of social programs will be how clearly we agree to a definition of social capital: knowing when it is there or not there. The definition in large part will come about

through the development of quantifiable and usable methods for measuring the extent of a community's social capital, and ways to continuously measure its incline or decline. Nobody would be opposed to creation of social capital or declare a war on social capital, except perhaps the internally focused social capital of an isolated or walled community that built its own social

capital at the expense of the larger community. It is a

concept that probably has a reasonably long useful life in the community development dialogue between academics and practitioners. However, its longer shelf life depends on finding acceptable ways for social

capital to be used as an output performance measure ment in public and nonprofit community development work. In effect, we have to start at measuring outcomes in order to clearly understand how to develop social

capital-rich social programs, or at least programs that don't inadvertently destroy social capital.

REFERENCES

Bennett, W. & Nun, S. (1998). Final Report of the

National Commission on Civic Renewal.

<http://www.puaf. umd. edu/ civic renewal/ final re port/table of contentsfina 1_ report. htm> .




Berman, Sheri. (1997). Civil society and political institutionalization. American Behavioral Scientist,

Vol. 40 No. 5, March/April, 562-574.

Berry, J., Portney, K. & Thompson, K. (1993). The Rebirth of Urban Democracy. Washington, D.C., The Brookings Institution.

Boyte, Harry C. & Nancy N. Kari. (1996). Building America: The Democratic Promise of Public Work.

Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

Bourdieu, P. & Wacquant, L.D. (1992). An Invitation to Reflexive Sociology. Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press.

Bullen, Paul & Jenny Onyx. (1998). Measuring Social

Capital in Five Communities in NSW: A Prac tioner's Guide. Coogee, Australia: Centre for Australian Community Organisations and Manage ment, University of Technology.

Clark, Barabara. (1997) Service Efforts & Accomplish ments: Report on City Government Performance. Portland: Auditor's Office, City of Portland.

Coleman, James. (1988). Social Capital in the Creation of Human Capital. American Journal of Sociology 94 (Supplement), S95-S120.

de Tocqueville, Alex. (1840). Democracy in America. New York: Mentor Books, 1956.

Foley, Michael W. & Bob Edwards. (1996). The Paradox of Civil Society. Journal of Democracy, 7.3, 38-52.

Fukuyama, Francis. (1995). Trust: The Social Virtues and the Creation of Prosperity. New York: Free Press.

Galston, W. A., Portes, A. & Landolt, P. (1996). Unsolved mysteries: The Tocqueville files II. American Prospect, (May-June): 16-21, 94.

Greeley, Andrew. (1997). Coleman revisited: Religious structures as a source of social capital. American Behavioral Scientist, Vol. 40 No. 5, March/April, 587-594.

Heying, Charles. (1997). Civic elites and corporate derealization. American Behavioral Scientist, Vol. 40 No. 5, March/April, 657-668.

Kretzman, J. & McKnight, J. (1993). Building Commu nities from the Inside Out. Evanston: Center for Urban Affairs, Northwestern University.

Minkoff, D. C. (1997). Producing social capital. American Behavioral Scientist, Vol. 40 No. 5, March/April, 606-619.

National Civic League. (1993). The Civic Index: A New

Approach to Improving Community Life. Denver: National Civic League.

Putnam, R. (1993). The prosperous community: Social

capital and public life. The American Prospect 13

(spring), 35-42.

Putnam, R. (1995). Tuning in, tuning out: The strange disappearance of social capital in America. PS: Political Science and Politics, December, 664-683.

Putnam, R. (1996). The strange disappearance of civic America. The American Prospect, 24. (Winter).

Robinson, J. & Godbey, G. (1995). Time for Life. Unpublished manuscript. College Park, MD:

University of Maryland. Sirianni, C.& Friedland, L. (1995). Social capital and

civic innovation: Learning and capacity building from the 1960s to the 1990s. Available on WWW:

http: //www. cpn. org/sections/ Skocpol, T. (1996). Unravelling from above. The

American Prospect. March-April, 21-25.

Wood, Richard L. Social capital and political culture. American Behavioral Scientist, Vol. 40 No. 5,

March/April 1997, 595-605.

Steve Johnson is a doctoral student in the Urban Studies and Planning Program at Portland State University. Prior

to entering the program he worked in the nonprofit sector for twenty five years, as a program manager, trainer, and

technology consultant. He has worked with over 350 organizations in the Pacific Northwest. He has served on 35

nonprofit boards and committees. His articles have appeared in The Chronicle of Philanthropy, The Nonprofit Times, and Utne Reader, among others.




Date post:	08-Jan-2017
Category:	Documents
Upload:	steve-johnson
View:	212 times
Download:	0 times

Applying Social Capital Theory to Needs Assessment, Social Program Development, and Evaluation: A...

Documents