This article was downloaded by: [North Carolina State University]On: 28 September 2012, At: 13:02Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Community DevelopmentPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rcod20

Ready for engagement: using keyinformant interviews to measurecommunity social capacityScott A. Chazdon a & Stephanie Lott aa University of Minnesota, Extension Center for CommunityVitality, 466 Coffey Hall, 1420 Eckles Avenue, Saint Paul,55108-6068, USA

Version of record first published: 05 Jul 2010.

To cite this article: Scott A. Chazdon & Stephanie Lott (2010): Ready for engagement: using keyinformant interviews to measure community social capacity, Community Development, 41:2,156-175

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15575331003646173

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representationthat the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of anyinstructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primarysources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings,demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly orindirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

Ready for engagement: using key informant interviews to measure

community social capacity

Scott A. Chazdon* and Stephanie Lott

University of Minnesota, Extension Center for Community Vitality, 466 Coffey Hall, 1420Eckles Avenue, Saint Paul, 55108-6068, USA

This article presents findings from 45 structured key informant interviewsconducted in nine rural Minnesota communities to examine the readiness of ruralcommunities to sustain long-term development initiatives requiring largecommitments of time, staff, and volunteer resources. A model of communityreadiness is proposed based on the common themes that emerged from theinterview data as well as the literature. The proposed model combines fourcomponents that contribute to a thorough assessment of readiness: bondingnetworks, bridging networks, linking networks and leadership energy. The studyprovides a new approach to help community development organizations makemore strategic decisions about when and how to engage communities in long-termdevelopment activity.

Keywords: anthropology; rural/small town change; citizen participation;qualitative research; methodology; rural community development; social capital

Introduction

When is a community ready to take action to move forward with its strategic vision?The idea of community readiness, and related concepts such as community socialcapacity or social capital, were developed for both practical and academic purposesto distinguish communities that have all the necessary social tools to embrace thefuture from those that don’t. From a practical perspective, an ability to assesscommunity social capacity would give community development professionals abetter sense of the type and amount of time and staff resources to invest in a singlecommunity. In communities with strong social capacities, community developersmay be able to accomplish more ambitious goals, and address longer-term issues. Incommunities with weaker social capacities, specific types of capacity building may beneeded before the community is able to effectively take on long-term challenges.

The study described in this article was developed and conducted by University ofMinnesota Extension with two related purposes:

(1) To examine the social capacity or readiness of rural communities to sustainlong-term development initiatives that require large investments of time and

*Corresponding author. Email: schazdon@umn.edu

Community Development

Vol. 41, No. 2, April–June 2010, 156–175

ISSN 1557-5330 print/ISSN 1944-7485 online

� 2010 Community Development Society

DOI: 10.1080/15575331003646173

http://www.informaworld.com

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th C

arol

ina

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

] at

13:

02 2

8 Se

ptem

ber

2012

resources of community volunteers and large investments of staff andresources of community development partners; and

(2) To develop a protocol for assessing community readiness, which can quicklyand efficiently provide information without imposing too much on thecommunity, as often occurs with survey assessments.

The findings of this qualitative study, including recommendations regarding arevised interview protocol, provide information to help community developers thinkabout community social capacity, and make more strategic decisions about when toengage communities in long-term, intensive programming. Especially important iswhen to first work on strengthening particular aspects of a community’s socialnetworks or leadership energy before engaging in broader community developmentwork.

Social capacity, social capital and readiness

The terms ‘‘community social capacity,’’ ‘‘community social capital’’ and ‘‘commu-nity readiness’’ are used throughout this article, although these terms have somewhatdifferent origins and meanings in the community development literature. Thefollowing discussion identifies the unique contributions of these three distinctconcepts to this project.

Community social capacity

Some authors have treated the concept of social capacity as an end in itself, whileothers argue that social capacity is a means to an end goal of tangible communityimprovement in a specific policy domain such as economic development or publichealth (MacLellan-Wright et al., 2007, p. 300). The concept has been widely used inhealth promotion contexts, where it has been defined as ‘‘a set of knowledge skills,commitments, and resources required by individuals and organizations to effectivelyplan, implement, and evaluate health promotion activities’’ (McLean et al., 2001, p.257). Chaskin (2001) suggested that most attempts to define community capacityhave some agreement on four factors:

(1) the existence of resources ranging from the skills of individuals to thestrength of organization to access financial capital;

(2) networks of relationships;(3) leadership (often vaguely defined); and(4) collective action and problem-solving (Chaskin, 2001, p. 293–294).

From a program evaluation perspective, the Wilder Research Center (Mattessich,Monsey, & Roy, 1997) conducted an exhaustive review of 48 case studies ofcommunity building, community development, and community empowerment. Thegoal of their research was to identify the factors that led to increased social capacity,which they defined as ‘‘the ability to develop and sustain strong relationships, solveproblems and make group decisions or collaborate effectively to identify goals andget work done’’ (Mattessich et al., 2007, p. 61). Their review yielded 28factors related to increased social capacity. These factors were organized into threethemes:

Community Development 157

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th C

arol

ina

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

] at

13:

02 2

8 Se

ptem

ber

2012

(1) characteristics of the community;(2) characteristics of the community building process; and(3) characteristics of community building organizers.

The Wilder Research Center’s factors were an important influence on the designof the currrent study. As described below, the interview protocol was based on thesethree themes and many of the 28 factors. The factors were especially helpful inidentifying qualities of community leadership and civic engagement crucial tounderstanding social capacity. However, the factors were not as helpful in framingthe importance of different types of social networks.

Community social capital

Robert Putnam defined social capital as the ‘‘features of social organization, such asnetworks, norms, and trust that facilitate coordination and cooperation for mutualbenefit’’ (Putnam, 1993, p. 35). The research literature on social capital hasorganized around two poles: one that emphasizes the benefits of social capital forindividuals and one that emphasizes its group benefits.

In the first camp, authors such as Lin (2001), argue that social resources andconnections are even more important for individuals than personal resources such aseducation or wealth. The second camp, including Putnam (1993) and Bourdieu(1986), emphasizes that social capital is a collective asset produced and shared bymembers of a group.

Building on the collective benefits of social capital, Flora, Flora, and Fey (2004)examine rural community contexts, creating the typology in Figure 1 that links twoaspects of social capital—bonding and bridging network—to effective communityaction.

Bonding networks refer to strong connections among individuals and groups withsimilar backgrounds, while bridging networks refer to weaker connections amongindividuals and groups with diverse backgrounds. While they do not use the term‘‘social capacity’’ or ‘‘readiness,’’ Flora et al. argue that communities with high levelsof both bonding and bridging networks are the most able to engage ineffective community action, a quality they define as an ‘‘entrepreneurial socialinfrastructure’’ (2004, p. 66). Communities with weak bonding and bridgingnetworks suffer from extreme individualism and find it difficult to engage in anysort of collective action. The end result is that wealthy or powerful individualscontrol any process of change in the community. Those communities with strongbonding, but weak bridging networks tend to have conflict among separate insidergroups vying for control of decision-making. Communities with strong bridging butweak bonding networks tend to leave too much control in the hands of outsiders orcommunity elites.

A Community Social Capital Model recently developed by the University ofMinnesota Extension focuses on trust and engagement in bonding and bridgingnetworks, adding ‘‘linking networks’’ to its framework (Scheffert, Horntredt, &Chazdon, 2008, see Figure 2). Following the work of Szreter and Woolcock (2004),who developed social capital models and surveys for the World Bank in developingcountries, linking networks are defined as ‘‘networks and institutionalized relation-ships among unequal agents’’ (Szreter, 2002, p. 579). Compared with bridgingnetworks, which connect individuals who are not alike but more or less equal in

158 S.A. Chazdon and S. Lott

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th C

arol

ina

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

] at

13:

02 2

8 Se

ptem

ber

2012

terms of status or power, linking networks are based an explicit ‘‘vertical’’ powerdifferentials. Particularly in poor communities, ‘‘it is the nature and extent (or lackthereof) of respectful and trusting ties to representatives of formal institutions—e.g.,bankers, law enforcement officers, social workers, health care providers—that has amajor bearing on their welfare’’ (Szreter & Woolcock, 2004, p. 655). These verticalconnections to organizations and systems help residents gain resources and bringabout change.

Figure 1. Community social capital typology and change.Source: Adapted slightly from Flora et al. (2004, p. 64). Copyright � 1167627600000 CorneliaButler Flora, Jan L. Flora. Reprinted by permission of Westview Press, a member of thePerseus Books Group.

Figure 2. University of Minnesota Extension’s Community Social Capital Model.

Community Development 159

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th C

arol

ina

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

] at

13:

02 2

8 Se

ptem

ber

2012

University of Minnesota Extension’s focus is on how communities can improvetheir social capital by strengthening their residents’ trust and engagement within allthree distinct networks: bonding, bridging and linking.

Community readiness

While researchers of community social capacity may have debated the question‘‘capacity for what?’’ the idea of community readiness always implies the ‘‘for what.’’Many applications of the concept have been in the prevention field, where the ‘‘forwhat’’ refers to programs to prevent substance abuse or other types of unhealthypractice. A practical definition of community readiness offered by Donnermeyer,Plested, Edwards, Oetting, and Littlethunder (1997) is ‘‘the relative level ofacceptance of a program, action or other form of decision-making that is locality-based’’ (Donnermeyer et al., 1997, p. 68).

The best-known community readiness model, developed by the Tri-Ethnic Centerfor Prevention Research at Colorado State University (Edwards, Jumper-Thurman,Plested, Oetting, & Swanson, 2000), provides tools for assessing communities, notonly to determine their stage of readiness, but also to determine the best course ofintervention based on their stage of readiness.

The Tri-Ethnic Center’s stages of community readiness are:

(1) No awareness—the community or the leaders do not usually recognize theissue as a problem.

(2) Denial—there is little or no recognition that this might be a local problem,but there is usually some recognition by at least some members of thecommunity that the behavior itself is or can be a problem.

(3) Vague awareness—there is general feeling in the community that there is alocal problem and that something should be done about it, but there is noimmediate motivation to do anything.

(4) Preplanning— there is clear recognition on the part of at least some that alocal problem exists and something should be done about it.

(5) Preparation—planning is going on and focuses on practical details.(6) Initiation—enough information is available to justify efforts (activities,

action, or policies).(7) Stabilization—one or two programs and activities are running, supported by

administrators or community decision-makers.(8) Confirmation/Expansion—there are standard efforts (activities and policies)

in place and authorities or community decision-makers support expanding orimproving efforts.

(9) Professionalization—detailed and sophisticated knowledge of prevalence,risk factors, and causes of the problem exist (Edwards et al., 2000, p. 298–300).

For communities at each stage of readiness in the model, the Tri-EthnicCenter provides specific guidance for intervention. For example, if a community isfound to be in ‘‘denial’’ of an issue, their model prescribes one-on-one visits withcommunity leaders and members, articles in church bulletins and local newsletters,and work with local education and health outreach programs to help raiseawareness.

160 S.A. Chazdon and S. Lott

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th C

arol

ina

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

] at

13:

02 2

8 Se

ptem

ber

2012

The Tri-Ethnic Center’s idea of readiness as a continuum is useful, and the earlystages in the model—lack of awareness, denial, vague awareness—describe com-munities that are facing major demographic or economic changes but are unable tomuster the energy to take on these challenges in a productive manner. However, themodel’s end goal of professionalization may contrast with the democratization/empowerment goals of community building efforts (McKnight, 1995). The goal ofcommunity development is not to ‘‘professionalize’’ a community’s use of a programas much as it is to encourage broad and deep involvement of community residents indecision-making and planning processes.

The readiness model is useful, however, in its identification of stages or phasesthat communities likely go through and in the identification of specific interventionstrategies to go with each stage. As Extension assessed a community’s social capacityor readiness, it was helpful to think about the action steps needed for communities atparticular stages of readiness, even if these stages do not match those describedabove.

From the literature on social capacity, social capital and community readiness,the researchers incorporated the following insights into this study of communityreadiness:

(1) Community readiness closely relates to community social capacity. Itrequires strong relationships, problem-solving and group decision-makingskills, and an ability to collaborate and get work done;

(2) Community leaders and organizers of community development activitiesmust be forward-thinking rather than stuck in ‘‘denial’’ or in a reactive stanceregarding change processes;

(3) Community readiness incorporates aspects of bonding, bridging and linkingnetworks; and

(4) Community readiness is best thought of as a continuum. Some communitiesare ‘‘more’’ ready, while some are ‘‘less’’ ready. Awareness of issues relatingto demographic, economic, or political change is an important stage in thereadiness continuum.

Methodology

The present study followed what Yin (1993) describes as an exploratory casestudy method. This method is the most suitable research technique for situations inwhich the phenomenon under study is difficult to distinguish from its context.Yin (1993) suggests that an exploratory case study ‘‘is aimed at defining thequestions and hypotheses of a subsequent (not necessarily case) study or atdetermining the feasibility of the desired research procedures’’ (Yin 1993, p. 5, author’semphasis).

The study in Minnesota used a structured interview tool that was based on WilderResearch’s Twenty-eight Factors for Successful Community Building. These 28 factorswere derived from ameta-analysis of the capacity-building literature and pertain to threecategories of community capacity: Social and physical characteristics of communities,characteristics of community-building organizers, or leaders, and characteristics of thecommunity-building process (activities). Using these 28 factors as a guide, the authorsdeveloped 17 statements to create the interview tool or ‘‘Community ReadinessAssessment’’ to be administered to residents of the nine communities.

Community Development 161

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th C

arol

ina

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

] at

13:

02 2

8 Se

ptem

ber

2012

The Minnesota communities chosen for this project had populations between500 and 5000 residents and poverty rates of at least 10%. These were the sameeligibility criteria used for a leadership development and poverty reduction programthat Extension has conducted for the past five years. The communities wererepresentative of geographic regions across Minnesota. Nine communities wererecruited to participate in this project. To ensure confidentiality of both the townsand residents interviewed, the communities have been generically identified bythe names of Minnesota birds: Osprey, Winter Wren, Blue Jay, HerringGull, Snowy Owl, Purple Finch, Mallard, Tree Swallow, and Mourning Dove (Table1). A tenth community was selected but removed from the sample due to its decisionto become involved with an Extension survey about its community’s social capital.

A total of 45 face-to-face interviews were conducted in the nine communities.Interviews were conducted by a research associate trained in ethnographic fieldmethods and depth interviewing. Five residents were identified in each of these townsas possible interview subjects based on their roles as informal or formal leaders andtheir level of knowledge about community-level issues and activities. In most cases,names and contact information for potential interviewees were given to theresearcher by Extension employees. These Extension connections were helpful inproviding entree into the study communities and in helping create a climate of trust.In some cases when a community was less known by Extension employees, a‘‘snowball’’ or ‘‘chain’’ technique was used where research subjects helped to identifyother potential interviewees in the community as being valid participants for thisproject.

The interviews were conducted during a three-month period from September2007 through November 2007. Research subjects were given a consent form, asked togive their level of agreement about 17 probe statements on a scale of 1–4 (e.g., 1correlated to strongly disagree, 4 to strongly agree) and then asked to explain theirresponses. Interviews lasted between 30 and 90 minutes and were digitally recorded.Interviewees were given an alphanumeric code or a pseudonym in this report toensure confidentiality. In addition, measures have been taken so that possibleidentifying factors for both informants and communities are minimal.

Upon completion of interview transcription, the authors used analytic inductionto generate and refine the core themes from the interview data. This method of

Table 1. Community demographics.

Community

Population(2000

Census) Region

Percent onerace andWhite

Percentof populationin poverty

Percent ofpopulation

age 65 or older

Percent ofadults witha Bachelor’s

degree or higher

Osprey 500 South 83.2 10.8 18.7 13.9Snowy Owl 200 Southwest 84.3 13.0 27.4 16.0Mourning Dove 100 West Central 97.8 14.8 20.3 8.1Tree Swallow 500 West Central 93.1 16.4 21.2 14.7Mallard 4500 West Central 97.9 15.6 24.1 16.0Winter Wren 500 Northeast 97.2 19.4 24.5 6.0Blue Jay 500 Northeast 97.9 12.1 22.3 12.5Herring Gull 100 Northwest 97.2 17.0 37.8 13.1Purple Finch 2000 Northwest 98.3 10.2 24.7 16.9

Note: Populations are rounded to the nearest 500 to protect the confidentiality of the study communities.

162 S.A. Chazdon and S. Lott

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th C

arol

ina

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

] at

13:

02 2

8 Se

ptem

ber

2012

analysis, as described by Denzin (1989) and Robinson (1951), involves the generationof hypotheses prior to entering the field that are then tested to see if they fit the factsin additional cases. The discovery of negative cases then leads to a reformulation ofthe hypothesis until a universal relationship is established. In many ways, analyticinduction is a qualitative technique that provides a bridge between interpretiveanalytic methods, such as the grounded theory approach (Glaser & Strauss 1967),and quantitative/deductive methods.

Since the purpose of this study was to produce a useful categorization schemefor community readiness, the analysis was organized initially around the threecategories of community social capacity statements: characteristics of leaders,characteristics of community building activities and social and physical character-istics of communities. Upon further analysis of the interview data, however, thesethree components of community social capacity did not succeed in capturing thefull range of interview content. For example, as respondents discussed the socialcharacteristics of their community, they often did so in terms of the strength ofrelationships within and between distinct subgroups of community members. Morespecifically, relationships among residents in many of these rural towns weredivided into groups of newer residents and long-time residents and in some casesvarious groups’ identities were determined by language, religion and culture. Insome communities, new efforts were underway to create bridges between long-termcommunity residents and newcomers.

Although residents did not use the actual terms, ‘‘bonding’’ or ‘‘bridging,’’ theirresponses fit the definitions of these categories and it was evident that theseaspects of social capital would help understand community readiness. The bondingand bridging network themes enabled the research team to begin to locatecommunities on a continuum from weak to strong in terms of these two types ofnetworks.

Beyond bonding and bridging networks, respondents were asked to describecharacteristics of community-building activities. In response to these questions,participants described various aspects of interactions between residents and leaders,the level of trust cultivated between these two groups, and the general level ofparticipation among residents in community events, activities, organizations andcity meetings. This type of vertical trust and engagement was distinct from morehorizontal discussions of bridging connections and is similar to the notion oflinking networks described in the recent social capital literature as well as theCommunity Social Capital Model developed by Extension (Figure 2). We choselinking networks as a third category with which we could gauge communitystrength.

In response to questions about characteristics of community leaders, respondentsbrought up a fourth theme, the receptiveness of community leaders to new ideas, newpeople and change. We labeled this theme ‘‘leadership energy.’’ While the linkingnetworks theme helped explain the level of trust and engagement that residents hadwith their leaders and institutions, the leadership energy theme capturedrespondents’ comments about the underlying energy and attitudes of communityleaders. In some communities, this energy was described as being ‘‘stuck in the past,’’while in other communities, this energy was described as ‘‘open and inclusive.’’ Thistheme also resonated with aspects of leadership described in the community socialcapacity literature.

Community Development 163

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th C

arol

ina

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

] at

13:

02 2

8 Se

ptem

ber

2012

Four components of community readiness

The interview data, organized in terms of the four components, is presented below,with a description of the variations in strength of these components of readiness inthe study communities. The tables display the interviewer’s assessment of thestrength of each component of readiness and exemplify how readiness is bestunderstood as a continuum.

Bonding networks

Bonding networks are comprised of close-kit ties that help people function. Theseconnections are usually with family, friends, and neighbors—people who sharesimilar backgrounds. Respondents across the nine study communities spoke of theimportance of shared history in forming a tight knit community, but different typesof shared histories were reported. Winter Wren, with a population of about 500, wasdescribed as ‘‘one of those towns where everyone is related,’’ a place whererelationships are strong and ‘‘people are active in each other’s lives.’’ Whereas thoseof other rural towns reported spending much of their earned dollar outside of theircommunities (e.g., Blue Jay, Mallard, Mourning Dove), it was not uncommon forWinter Wren residents to opt out of running their errands after workdays in largernearby cities to shop at the local grocery store back in Winter Wren. After all, it wasexplained, ‘‘this is their home.’’

In more diverse communities such as Osprey, respondents reported tight-knitconnections within the Anglo community as well as within the Latino community.Rosa, a member of the Latino community, described relationships in Osprey:

It’s a division of two sectors, two groups of people, and you see it everywhere. TheAnglo community is very strong. They have friends come over. I see it as a very strongrelationship. Latinos, too—they invite each other for parties. But the two culturestogether—you won’t see that.

A similar description was echoed by an Anglo resident who said, ‘‘There is a lotof respect toward each other within the Anglo community and within the Hispaniccommunity. Each of those [groups] has strong networks. It’s just that those betweenthe two are not.’’

In the somewhat larger community of Mallard, respondents reported tight-knitfamilies, but a sense that the commitment to the larger community was missing:

If someone is in trouble with a health crisis, the community will throw a benefit [but] asa wider community—do they all care about each other? No, not really at all . . . forthose that are in trouble in this community, the poor, you could just as well flush themdown the toilet, they couldn’t really care less.

Respondents in Mallard spoke with concern that none of the downtown businessowners lived in town, preferring to live on a golf course five miles out of town or on alake 25 miles away. Others referred to the community as ‘‘fragmented,’’ with manydifferent groups working on different issues, but without a sense of what they have incommon.

The description of Mallard’s bonding networks as fragmented was unique amongthe nine study communities. For the other eight communities, respondents felt that

164 S.A. Chazdon and S. Lott

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th C

arol

ina

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

] at

13:

02 2

8 Se

ptem

ber

2012

bonding networks were strong, even if there were distinct networks among ethnicgroups. To provide a sense of the strength of bonding networks in the studycommunities, Table 2 displays summary statements with the researcher’s judgmentof whether the bonding networks were weak, moderate, or strong.

Bridging networks

Bridging networks are weaker ties that can help people get ahead and gainopportunities. These networks are usually with people different from themselves whoare engaged in different types of activities such as employment, clubs, or volunteerorganizations. None of the nine communities reported especially strong bridgingnetworks, but some reported emerging connections between long-term residents andnewcomers. In Tree Swallow, one resident told the story of a woman in her 80s who,three years ago, had a Mexican family move in next door. The ‘‘first thing she didwas bake a cake and bring it over to them and they’ve been in love with each otherever since.’’ Since the Mexican family works in the meat-packing industry, it is said

Table 2. Bonding networks in the study communities.

Community Bonding networks

Strength ofbondingnetworks

Osprey There are strong, close-knit relationships among membersof the Anglo community; There are strong, close-knitrelationships among members of the Latino community.

Strong

Snowy Owl Relationships are strong among residents with similarbackgrounds (Lao, Latino, Mennonite, and newerresidents are all distinct groups whose members haveclose-knit ties).

Strong

MourningDove

There are strong, close-knit relationships among membersof similar backgrounds.

Strong

Tree Swallow There are strong, close-knit relationships among membersof the Anglo community; There are strong, close-knitrelationships among members of the Latino community.

Strong

Mallard Some close-knit relationships exist among residents withsimilar backgrounds but overall, communityrelationships are described as fragmented.

Moderate

Winter Wren Residents have close connections to other residents ofsimilar background and feel a strong sense of belongingwithin their community (including having ties to theirlocal businesses).

Strong

Blue Jay Relationships are tight-knit but these close bonds applymore to those residents with strong generational ties tothe community.

Strong

Herring Gull Relationships are close-knit, especially among those withstrong generational ties to the area.

Strong

Individual organizations focus on their specific group goalsrather than on community-oriented goals that could uniteor bring together different groups.

Purple Finch Relationships among residents are strong and communitymembers share a sense of belonging to their community.

Strong

Community Development 165

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th C

arol

ina

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

] at

13:

02 2

8 Se

ptem

ber

2012

that this woman ‘‘can’t buy any meat in town—turkey, chicken, beef, nothing—theybring it on over to her. Every time there is a baptism, confirmation, first communion,she’s invited.’’ The interactions and relationships being developed by both Angloand Latino groups at an informal level apart from institutions like the school aresignificant. An older resident of Tree Swallow perhaps accurately describes thiscommunity when he said, ‘‘We are not so diverse that we are divided and we don’talways agree on everything and that’s healthy but we are strong enough to bend, weare not brittle.’’

The community of Snowy Owl, said to have a ‘‘welcoming spirit,’’ has measuresin place to help with the arrival of new populations. The community ‘‘tries to reachout to’’ new Lao families by ‘‘using their existing population of that same origin tohelp with the new people who are moving into the community.’’ For instance, anestablished resident from the Lao community who is connected to the local Lutheranchurch is sent to welcome new Lao families and to provide them with basicinformation to get them settled. Snowy Owl offers other resources such as extensiveESL classes and a Spanish-language pregnancy group at the local clinic. With regardto translation though, ‘‘there is always room for improvement.’’ Even at city hall,many families have to bring in their young children to do the translating. One of themore interesting examples of an attempt to bridge the community of Snowy Owlrelates back to the museum. Every fall, this museum celebrates Russian Mennoniteand the Lutheran history during a fair celebrating the town’s heritage, but accordingto one Mennonite member of this community who is pushing to include theHispanics and the Lao in the celebration, ‘‘those aren’t the only two heritages in thistown anymore . . . and it doesn’t represent my town.’’ Likewise, another resident saidthat he ‘‘always thought of [the museum] as a living record of the history of [SnowyOwl] so even though it did record old plows and early buildings of the era, it couldcontinue that with the Laotians coming in and expanding the new accomplishmentsto include a new bigger [Snowy Owl].’’

Division between newer residents and those with stronger area ties was commonin the towns we studied, but it was most glaring in the community of Blue Jay, wherenewer residents ‘‘are not accepted with open arms.’’ Furthermore, newcomers appearto be surrounded by a haze of suspicion and are even somewhat feared. They are‘‘looked at like ‘who are you and why are you here’; like they are spies orsomething . . .’’ As stated by a newer member of the community:

[This area] is very cliquish. Blue Jay is a community based on the same small numbers ofpeople. They grew up together. They went to grammar school together. They went tohigh school together. They worked at the mines together and they strongly discourageoutsiders from intruding on their private little world.

Table 3 displays summary statements about the bridging networks in each studycommunity, with the researcher’s assessment of the strength of these networks. Asshown in the table, none of the communities had strong bridging networks, but the sixcommunities identified as moderate were showing signs of emerging engagement andtrust among distinct social groups, based on ethnicity, social class, or length of residence.

Linking networks

As compared with bridging networks, which connect individuals who are not alikeyet more or less equal in terms of status or power, linking networks are based onexplicit ‘‘vertical’’ power differentials. Linking networks include ties to formal

166 S.A. Chazdon and S. Lott

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th C

arol

ina

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

] at

13:

02 2

8 Se

ptem

ber

2012

Table 3. Bridging networks in the study communities.

Community Bridging Networks

Strength ofBridgingNetworks

Osprey Some interactions are taking place and trust is beingdeveloped between the Anglo group and the Latinogroup; Resources in place to ensure communicationbetween Anglos and Latinos.

Moderate

Snowy Owl The community is known to be a welcoming place fornewcomers with established residents reaching out tothem. Measures are being taken and resources are inplace to aid in the inclusion of more marginalized groups.

Moderate

Mourning Dove Little effort is made to bridge the gap between establishedresidents and newcomers.

Weak

Tree Swallow Some interactions are taking place between Anglo andLatino residents;

Moderate

There are resources in place to help in the development ofcommunication between Anglos and Latinos.

Mallard Little communication exists between various communitygroups and tension exists even between older residentsand younger residents with similar backgrounds.Outsiders are looked upon with suspicion and newcomersand minority groups seem to be marginalized.

Weak

Winter Wren Some newcomers may feel disconnected from the greatercommunity but established residents are aware of theimportance of reaching out to newcomers. Individualgroups include the wider community in events andactivities and are instrumental in bringing the communitytogether (e.g. bank picnics).

Moderate

Blue Jay Newer residents are viewed with suspicion and a divisionexists between established residents and newcomers to thearea.

Weak

Herring Gull Older residents and younger residents interact with oneanother and the importance of cross-generationalrelationships is evident. Newcomers may feeldisconnected from the community but some residentsrealize this is an issue of concern.

Moderate

Purple Finch There are some examples of residents of differentbackgrounds interacting with one another and thecommunity seems to be less divided than most others.

Moderate

institutions as well as individuals with power and resources. The strength of this typeof network varied widely among the nine study communities. Residents of WinterWren, at the strong end of the continuum, described how informal communityleaders tended to ‘‘hold court at different restaurants in town in the morning forcoffee and a lot of people pay attention to what is said there.’’ Whereas othercommunities reported uncertainty about getting participants for programs, WinterWren’s success in recruiting community members was demonstrated by one residentwho said about Winter Wren’s involvement with a leadership program aimed atpoverty reduction, ‘‘we were so impressed with how many people we had tovolunteer—and we didn’t have to twist arms. They wanted to see something goodcome out of it.’’

Community Development 167

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th C

arol

ina

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

] at

13:

02 2

8 Se

ptem

ber

2012

Somewhat weaker in terms of linking trust and engagement was Herring Gull,where respondents commented that community input, whether targeted at theschools or the city council, was not purposefully solicited. One respondent noted that‘‘the agenda for city council meetings is always just bare bones and the minutes in thepaper are ridiculous. We don’t really get enough information to be involved.’’Another resident commented that Herring Gull was ‘‘in need of more knowledgeand more education’’ with regard to residents’ understanding of their citygovernment.

While respondents in Herring Gull noted that community input was not solicited,some respondents in Mourning Dove felt that important decisions in theircommunity were not even discussed publicly. One former community leader triedto give input to a current leader and was told, ‘‘Don’t you think we know what we’redoing, stay out of it!’’ Mourning Dove was said to have a ‘‘real problem’’ with theirelected officials keeping things ‘‘tight-lipped’’ and not putting them on the table.’’Another interviewee said that leaders are ‘‘not always open to everybody . . . theyhave their core group that they want to have help with planning, help with thedecision making process and are not open to having everybody else in thecommunity come and share their opinions.’’

Table 4 displays the continuum of summary statements about linking networks ineach of the nine study communities. Based on the interview data, the research teamconcluded that four of the nine communities had weak linking networks. It wascommon in these communities for respondents to describe high levels of mistrustand low levels of engagement between residents and community leaders orinstitutions.

Leadership energy

The leadership energy theme was demonstrated by descriptions of how opencommunity leaders were to new ideas, new people, and change. In contrast to linkingnetworks, which were a reflection of the relationship between community residentsand leaders, the leadership energy theme captured qualities of the positional andreputational leaders themselves. A community with weak leadership energy is one inwhich the leaders were described as being stuck in the past, continuing to engagewith the same stakeholders and refusing to accommodate new viewpoints orpossibilities. Mallard was one example of a community with weak leadership energy.Mallard was said to have a ‘‘wall around the city.’’ There was little interaction withoutside organizations and the forefathers of this community were felt to ‘‘prettymuch run everything’’ and seem less than enthused about incorporating new ideaslike a mural project. Perhaps most detrimental to Mallard is that leaders leave thecommunity during traditional holidays like the Fourth of July, festivities which onerespondent felt ‘‘could be a real community event.’’ The absent leaders ‘‘do not wantan event like this because they don’t want to be obligated to be here.’’

Some of the study communities showed signs of new leadership energy. One TreeSwallow respondent commented that community leaders ‘‘have tried to be proactivein what needs to be done’’ in their town and are said to have been ‘‘open enough andaggressive enough to keep industry and business’’ in the community. Anotherrespondent, however, noted a general complacency of community leaders to issues ofdiversity and integration of Latino residents. This community was described as beingin transition and was at a point ‘‘where the next generation needs to step forward.’’

168 S.A. Chazdon and S. Lott

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th C

arol

ina

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

] at

13:

02 2

8 Se

ptem

ber

2012

Table 4. Linking networks in the study communities.

Community Linking Networks

Strength ofLinkingNetworks

Osprey Some trust has been developed between leaders and residentsof both Anglo and Latino groups; Residents are willing andable to express opinions to community leaders. In general,community problems and issues are discussed in a healthymanner and there is good communication between leadersand residents when conflicts arise.

Strong

Snowy Owl Little trust has been developed between leaders and residentsand there is a lack of encouragement on the part of leadersto include residents in community planning and decision-making. Opportunities to connect to organizations thatbring about change are limited and it is difficult to recruitresidents to participate in community-building activities andevents.

Weak

MourningDove

Opinions vary about the level of participation among residentsin community-building activities and events. Trust andinteractions between leaders and residents are limited to acore group of each.

Weak

Both present and past community issues and conflicts seemdifficult to resolve.

Tree Swallow Some residents feel that leaders do not encourage theparticipation of all residents in community planning anddecision-making. There are also examples of leaders activelyseeking the opinions and involvement of many residents.Participation in community events and activities is becomingmore evident.

Moderate

Mallard Trust is limited to that developed between certain leaders andcertain residents. There is little encouragement on the part ofleaders to include residents in decision-making processes. Ingeneral, residents do not feel comfortable expressing theiropinions and community meetings are prone to heatedconflict.

Weak

Winter Wren Some trust is developed between leaders and residents.Residents feel that their voices are heard and takenseriously. There are opportunities for residents to createchange with high levels of resident participation in bothsmall-scale and large-scale activities.

Strong

Blue Jay Little trust has been developed between leaders and residents.Control of knowledge, power and resources is retainedwithin the group of long-time residents which createsbarriers to effective communication between leaders andresidents and limits resident participation in somecommunity events and activities.

Weak

Herring Gull Some trust has been developed between residents and leaders. ModerateResident involvement in community decision-making happensbut is not actively encouraged and communication betweenresidents and leaders could be improved.

Purple Finch Trust has been developed between leaders and residents andcommunity members feel comfortable voicing theiropinions. Communication between residents and leaders iswell-developed and residents are strongly encouraged toparticipate in community-planning and decision-making.

Strong

Community Development 169

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th C

arol

ina

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

] at

13:

02 2

8 Se

ptem

ber

2012

Purple Finch exhibited a strong sense of leadership energy. One formalcommunity leader said that Purple Finch is always looking to regional and stateorganizations for new ideas and that the community is ‘‘always willing to adapt.’’ Atelling sign that Purple Finch had a more vibrant sense of leadership energy is thatelected leadership positions in the community are actively contested. One residentsaid that when there is a city election, ‘‘it’s not just the same incumbent that is inthere over and over because nobody else cares to run against them. There are peoplewho want to be involved and want to be in those positions.’’

Table 5 displays the continuum of summary statements about the leadershipenergy in each of the nine study communities. Based on the interviews, the

Table 5. Leadership energy in the study communities.

Community Leadership Energy

Strength ofLeadershipEnergy

Osprey Leadership looks beyond the past to envision the future ofthe community. Leadership base is a mix of moreestablished community residents and newer, youngermembers of the community; Some leaders embrace newideas and encourage the participation of under-recognizedpopulations (e.g. Latinos).

Strong

Snowy Owl The existing leadership is described as slow to change anddoes not actively embrace new ideas; change is toleratedand the importance of being able to adapt to newsituations is recognized.

Moderate

Mourning Dove There is a lack of turnover in leadership positions and newleaders are not encouraged.

Moderate

Change is not actively sought and leaders do not look fornew ways of doing things.

Tree Swallow One concern mentioned by residents was that leaders are notproactive enough in dealing with the issue of diversity andthe process of building a more unified community.

Moderate

Mallard Established leaders have been in power for long periods oftime and there is resistance to the new leaders and newideas. Leaders are absent from important communityevents.

Weak

Winter Wren While not actively resistant to change, leadership emphasizesthat change should be approached locally and withcaution.

Moderate

Blue Jay At times, the leadership actively resists new ideas and there islittle encouragement to recruit new people into leadershiproles.

Weak

Herring Gull Existing leaders do not encourage new people to become partof the leadership base.

Moderate

The current leadership is described as being stuck in the pastand tends to rely on traditional ways of doing things.

Purple Finch Leaders are actively willing to adapt to new situations andseek out new ideas and new ways of doing things.Leadership positions are highly sought and there is roomfor new leaders to emerge in the community.

Strong

170 S.A. Chazdon and S. Lott

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th C

arol

ina

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

] at

13:

02 2

8 Se

ptem

ber

2012

researchers concluded that two of the communities had weak leadership energy, fivehad moderate leadership energy, and two had strong leadership energy.

A proposed community readiness model

A proposed model of community readiness (see Figure 3) based on common themesthat emerged from the interview data consists of four main components: (1) bondingnetworks; (2) bridging networks; (3) linking networks; and (4) leadership energy.These four readiness components inform a community’s position regarding diversityissues, acceptance of newcomers, the degree of connections between residents,leaders and organizations, and a community’s general willingness to change. Takentogether, the strength of the four components indicates a community’s ability toengage in community development initiatives that require long-term commitments ofresources and time for both the community and the development partner.

This proposed model builds on Flora et al.’s (2004) insights regarding bondingand bridging networks. However, with the inclusion of linking networks andleadership energy, this model includes other factors that influence a community’spotential for action. Also, by relying on a graduated scale, this model can capturenuances of community readiness and suggests that aspects of community readiness,such as bridging networks, are often ‘‘in progress’’. The community has begun toaddress tensions, but has much work remaining to build trust and contact amongdisparate social groups.

Three of the study communities that exemplify the range of readiness are visuallypresented in Figure 4.

The wheel-like appearance of the model is intended to suggest a sense ofmovement. A community with consistently moderate or strong components ofreadiness, seen as ‘‘wedges’’ in the wheel, can more easily move toward a desiredfuture. A community with one or two strong ‘‘wedges’’ may be able to move within alimited range of motion, but at some point will encounter the barriers of its weakerreadiness components. In Snowy Owl (Figure 4), strong bonding networks andmoderate bridging networks and leadership energy would eventually conflict withweak linking trust and engagement. The implication is that Snowy Owl would benefit

Figure 3. Community readiness model.

Community Development 171

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th C

arol

ina

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

] at

13:

02 2

8 Se

ptem

ber

2012

from a more specific focus on building trust and contact among residents and civicleaders and institutions before moving forward with larger scale initiatives.

Blue Jay, seen on the right of Figure 4, was a community with strong bondingnetworks and weak bridging networks. In Flora et al.’s (2004) model (Figure 1) thistype of community would resist externally initiated change or be inhibited byinfighting that makes community change efforts difficult. Although this is a usefultypology when addressing communities with clearly weak or strong networks, it isimportant to note that other factors that fall outside the parameters of this typologycontribute to Blue Jay’s resistance to change. Most notably, this community’slinking networks were also weak and some community respondents felt that thestrong bonding networks in this community were able to negatively influence otherareas of their social capital. The intense bonding network of a select few was able topermeate the leadership fabric of this community resulting in this small inside groupof core leaders continually making decisions and controlling access to information,resources and opportunities for change.

Using this model, Blue Jay appears relatively weak in three of the four factors ofreadiness: bridging networks, linking networks and leadership energy. It is thereforereasonable to conclude that this community would have difficulty participating in aninitiative directed at long-term change. When considering Blue Jay’s current state ofcommunity capacity it is more likely that it would benefit from programs directed atimproving a single factor of readiness such as those aimed at strengtheningleadership energy or trust and engagement between residents and community leadersor institutions (linking networks).

Blue Jay’s position at the right or ‘‘less-ready’’ end of the continuum isjuxtaposed with Osprey placed at the left or ‘‘more ready’’ end of the spectrum.Osprey exhibited strong bonding networks, some bridging networks, relativelystrong linking networks and a proactive leadership base with examples of opennesstoward new ideas, new people, and new connections being cultivated outside of theirrespective communities. This community is likely to be a strong candidate for moreintensive community development activities.

Most communities in the study were between Blue Jay on one end and Osprey onthe other. The communities located toward the ‘‘less ready’’ end of the continuumtended to have one or more weak components of readiness, while the communities onthe ‘‘more ready’’ end tended to have one or more strong components of readiness.

Figure 4. Community readiness continuum.

172 S.A. Chazdon and S. Lott

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th C

arol

ina

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

] at

13:

02 2

8 Se

ptem

ber

2012

Conclusions

The goals of this study were twofold:

(1) To examine the social capacity or readiness of rural communities to sustainlong-term development initiatives; and

(2) To develop a protocol for assessing community readiness, which can quicklyand efficiently provide information without imposing too much on thecommunity.

The model of community readiness presented here was influenced by earlierresearch on social capacity, social capital, and community readiness. In some respects,it is old wine in a new bottle. But the unique contribution of the conceptual frameworkis its accessibility to community development practitioners of the four pieces of thereadiness pie, notably bonding, bridging, and linking networks, and leadership energy.The continuum shows that it is not necessary for a community to be strong in all fourcategories of the proposed model to participate in programs, but it is important for acommunity to have consistent and moderate bonding, bridging, linking and leadershipenergy if expected to succeed in initiatives directed at long-term change.

For community development practitioners, the model presented here provides aframework for determining which communities are ready for long-term initiativesand which may be served by smaller-scale, more targeted programs. For example,Extension currently has emerging leadership programs to enhance leadership energyand social capital workshops and assessment processes to strengthen bonding,bridging and linking networks. New offerings are being developed focusing onnewcomers to small towns to further strengthen bridging networks. Mostimportantly, the community readiness model helps clarify that these programs arepart of a larger framework to build overall community capacity for change.

The protocol used for this study is noteworthy because it is replicable in othercommunities and has the potential to be much less disruptive and time consumingthan survey assessments. The revised protocol (Appendix A) more closely resemblesthe model of readiness discussed above. Several questions used in the originalprotocol were both relevant and crucial to understand a community’s readinessstatus but other questions were omitted and replaced with statements that relatemore specifically to the four components.

The readiness assessment protocol presented here relied on the skills of anindividual trained in ethnographic field methods and depth interviewing. These typesof individuals can be found in (or are products of) graduate anthropology orqualitative sociology departments. The interviewer must be a community outsiderwith the skills to develop a comfortable rapport with diverse individuals. It isimportant for the interviewer to understand each community’s local context throughbackground information. It was helpful to receive names and contact information ofcommunity residents who can speak from experience about the strengths andweaknesses of their communities from Extension employees who had connections tothese communities. Where Extension educators do not have strong connections orknow too few residents, it is important that interviewers can forge new connectionsin communities using such interview recruitment techniques as the chain method. Animportant consideration for similar projects in the future is the ability to obtain adiverse sample regardless of community size. If funding permits, it would also be

Community Development 173

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th C

arol

ina

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

] at

13:

02 2

8 Se

ptem

ber

2012

beneficial to increase the number of interviews in order to have a broader samplebase.

While the data produced by qualitative studies such as this are less objective thansurvey data with a larger numbers of respondents, a strength of using qualitative keyinformant interviews includes the subtleties in community dynamics elicited from theinterviews. This more nuanced understanding of particular community issues mayprovide insight and important background information for non-local organizationsworking in these communities.

Furthermore, there are ways to add objectivity to the collection andinterpretation of the interview data. Transcripts can be reviewed by multipleindividuals with the intent to agree upon ‘‘scores’’ (strong, moderate, or weak) foreach aspect of readiness. The selection of key informants can be reviewed byExtension educators or others familiar with the community to determine if as broada spectrum of the community as possible is represented.

References

Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. In J.G. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of theory andresearch for the sociology of education (pp. 241–258). Westport, Connecticut: GreenwoodPress.

Chaskin, R.J. (2001). Building community capacity: A definitional framework and case studiesfrom a comprehensive community initiative. Urban Affairs Review, 36(3), 291–323.

Denzin, N.K. (1989). The research act (3rd ed). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Donnermeyer, J.F., Plested, B.A., Edwards, R.W., Oetting, G., & Littlethunder, L. (1997).

Community readiness and prevention programs. Journal of the Community DevelopmentSociety, 28(1), 65–83.

Edwards, R.W., Jumper-Thurman, P., Plested, B.A., Oetting, E.R., & Swanson, L. (2000).Community readiness: Research to practice. Journal of Community Psychology, 28(3),291–307.

Flora, C.B., Flora, J., & Fey, S. (2004). Rural communities: Legacy and change (2nd ed).Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory. Chicago, IL: Aldine.Lin, N. (2001). Social capital: A theory of social structure and action. New York: Cambridge

University Press.MacLellan-Wright, M.F., Anderson, D., Barber, S., Smith, N., Cantin, B., Felix, R., & Raine,

K. (2007). The development of measures of community capacity for community-basedfunding programs in Canada. Health Promotion International, 22(4), 299–306.

Mattessich, P., Monsey, B., & Roy, C. (1997). Community building: What makes it work?St. Paul, MN: Amherst H. Wilder Foundation.

McKnight, J. (1995). The careless society: Community and its counterfeits. New York: BasicBooks.

McLean, S., Ebbesen, L., Green, K., Reeder, B., Butler-Jones, D., & Steer, S. (2001). Capacityfor community development: An approach to conceptualization and measurement.Journal of the Community Development Society, 32(2), 251–270.

Putnam, R. (1993). The prosperous community: Social capital and public life. The AmericanProspect, 4(13), 35–42.

Robinson, W.S. (1951). The logical structure of analytic induction. American SociologicalReview, 16(6), 812–818.

Scheffert, D.R., Horntvedt, J., & Chazdon, S. (2008). Social capital and our community.Retrieved August 31, 2009 from University of Minnesota Extension website: http://www.extension.umn.edu/community/00007.pdf

Szreter, S., & Woolcock, M. (2004). Health by association? Social capital, social theory,and the political economy of public health. International Journal of Epidemiology, 33(4),650–667.

Yin, R.K. (1993). Applications of case study research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

174 S.A. Chazdon and S. Lott

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th C

arol

ina

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

] at

13:

02 2

8 Se

ptem

ber

2012

Appendix 1. Recommended community readiness assessment

(Respondents asked to respond to each statement using a the following scale: 1 ¼ StronglyDisagree, 2 ¼ Disagree, 3 ¼ Agree, 4 ¼ Strongly Agree)

I. Characteristics of Bonding and Bridging Networks

1. Residents with similar backgrounds trust each other and have strong relationships.2. Residents with different backgrounds trust each other and have strong relationships.3. Newcomers to this community are well-received and feel that they are part of the

community.4. Newcomers have resources to offer the community.5. Community residents are willing to cooperate and work together to solve problems.6. Community members feel a sense of identification with this town.

II. Characteristics of Linking Networks

7. Community members feel comfortable expressing their opinions to community leaders.8. Community leaders encourage residents to actively participate in community planning

and decision-making.9. Community groups and organizations work toward goals that benefit the entire

community.10. There are strong communication networks in this community that make it easy for

residents to become aware of community goals and activities.11. Community leaders develop trusting relationships with community residents.12. Community residents have opportunities to connect with resources outside of this

community that help to bring about change.

III. Characteristics of Leadership Energy

13. Community leaders are willing to look outside of this community for new ideas and newways of doing things.

14. Community leaders are able to adapt to changing situations.15. Community leaders are able to move beyond the past and look toward the future of this

community.16. City elections are often close races with new people running for leadership positions.17. Community leaders encourage the development and support of future leaders.

IV. Characteristics of the Community

18. There are issues in this community that are serious enough to require a communitybuilding initiative.

19. There has been a significant change in the demographics and/or economics of thiscommunity.

20. This community is ready to become involved with outside organizations for the purposeof creating long-term change.

Community Development 175

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th C

arol

ina

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

] at

13:

02 2

8 Se

ptem

ber

2012