Community Building and Social Capital: Can they change

housing quality?

Susan Saegert Gary Winkel

City University of New York Graduate Center

Community BuildingCommunity Building

• Locally focused approaches to collective problem-solving

• Promote socially valuable relationships• Support leadership development • Increase relational and organizational skills of

residents and groups• Promote sustained stakeholder engagement• Develop a sense of common purpose• Increase institutional capacity

Social Capital:Relationships of trust and reciprocity that facilitate cooperation and achievement of group and individual goals.

• Intergenerational closure

• Shared norms

• Mechanisms for enforcing sanctions

• communication

The Neighborhood Partners Initiative of the Edna McConnell Clark Foundation

• Target 3-8 block area• Engage local residents in planning, leadership,

organizational participation and community action • Build relationships between the lead organization

and other organizations and institutions that can facilitate the changes desired

• Support lead organizations to build new capacities for community change

• Use evaluation to help lead organizations develop measurable objectives, assess progress toward them, and rethink strategies accordingly

ADC

Social Capital and the Revitalization of Social Capital and the Revitalization of New York City’s Distressed Inner-City New York City’s Distressed Inner-City

HousingHousing

Housing Policy Debate, 9 (1), 17-60

Susan Saegert Gary H. Winkel

City University of New York Graduate Center

MethodsMethods

• Based on Brooklyn Task Force Survey– 15% random sample of city-owned buildings

and close to 100% sample of Tenant Coops, CBO owned buildings, Private Landlord owned buildings and Public Housing Authority owned buildings from in rem stock.

– 2,985 surveys in 487 buildings– Average income: >$10,000 per year– Over 95% racial minorities– Average building size: 13-14 units

Building Level Regression

Predictors • Building Quality

+ Density

+ Average education

+ Female Heads

+ % employed /pensions

+ Formal leadership + Formal leadership

+ Prosocial norms + Prosocial norms

+Tenant Association +Tenant Association ParticipationParticipation (works (works through management through management quality)quality)

• Survey Reported Crime+ Low income + Density + More children

- - Coops Coops - Community Group - Community Group

OwnersOwners- Prosocial norms- Prosocial norms + Informal + Informal

participation participation + Formal leadership+ Formal leadership

NPI Study Method• CUNY and Metis develop survey with CBO staff

to measure Resident Leadership Outcome Goals AND measures of community building activities (services, organizing, leadership development) and outcomes (social capital)

• Recruit and train community residents as surveyors; assign buildings for geographic coverage; use payment incentives for hard- to- survey areas

• Grad students do on-site monitoring, retraining, phone validation, some surveying

Sample and Analysis

• Total Sample – Four sites A (confrontational organizers); B

(gentrifying area housing providers); C (housing and service) ;D (service)

– 898 residents in 244 buildings

• After excluding buildings with one respondent – 129 buildings

• All analyses are at the building not individual level (General Linear Model of Building Averages)

Building Level Social Capital Factors

• Amount of Participation in Tenants Association

• Number of Residents with Formal Leadership Roles in Tenant Association

• Prosocial Norms: shared expectations that residents will take care of the building and assist each other

Housing Condition Factors

• Apartment Construction– Holes in surfaces– Electric problems– Water leaks– Pests– Window problems

• Apartment Systems– Heat– Hot water– Plumbing

• Building Maintenance• Building Crime• Building Incivilities

– Graffiti– People hanging out– Empty apartments

Predictors of Building Level Social Capital

• Tenant association participation higher for– Older– Higher income– More contact with NPI– Contact at sites B & D increased participation more

• Formal Leadership higher for– More NPI Contact– Site B

• Prosocial Norms higher for– Sites A & D

Predictors of Apartment Construction

• Fewer Problems when– Residents older– Residents have higher income– For sites A, B, D more contact related to fewer

problems; Site C more contact more problems– Effect of site X contact mediated by prosocial

norms – Site A (confrontational organizers) had fewer

problems even when prosocial norms in model

Predictors of Apartment Systems

• Fewer Problems when– Residents older– Residents have higher income– For sites A, B, D more contact related to fewer

problems; Site C more contact more problems– Effect of site X contact mediated by formal

leadership (more leadership when more problems)

Predictors of Building Maintenance

• Fewer Problems when– Residents older (mediated by building social

capital)– Residents have higher income– More NPI contact – Site A (confrontational organizers) have best

maintenance– Site effect mediated by social capital: more

building leadership when worse, more prosocial norms when better

Predictors of Building Crime

• Less Crime when– Residents older– Residents live in building longer

Predictors of Building Incivilities

• Less Incivilities when– Residents older– Residents higher income– More NPI Contact– Highest at Site B (gentrifying area)– Less formal leadership– Higher prosocial norms– Social capital factors mediate out age and site

NPI Contact

Site/CBO characteristics

Older

Higher Income

Longer length of residence

Participation in TA

Formal Leadership

Prosocial Norms

Apt. systems

Apt construction

Bldg. Maintenance

Bldg. Crime

Bldg. Incivilities

Implications of Community Building and Social Capital

For Housing Conditions

SummaryNPI Contact related to more tenant participation

and leadership AND better building conditionsSome sites have higher pro social norms but not

clearly related to NPIAggressive Community Organizing CBO site had

better apartment conditionsProsocial Norms (tenant helping keep building in

good shape and help each other) relate to better maintained buildings

Formal Leadership most active when there are problems with building conditions

YesYes Community Building and Social Capital Community Building and Social Capital contribute to Housing Qualitycontribute to Housing Quality

• Community Building contributed to social capital in form of tenant association activity

• Community Building directly improved building conditions in areas related to management vigilance

• Aggressive Community Organizing improved building condition that required capital investment

• Shared perceptions of cooperation in keeping building physically and socially in good condition related to shared perceptions that the building is in good condition.

• Caution: in non-self report data and in hierarchical rather than simultaneous regression model Basic Tenant Association participation more important.

Process

• Community Building supports voluntary association which responds to building problems

• Community Building increases management vigilance

• Community ORGANIZING increases capital investment

• In some places people have a consensus that residents are cooperative and they see building conditions as better – Existence of a tenant association may facilitate this consensus