Building Social Capital Through Neighborhood Mobilization: Challenges and Lessons Learned

Community Change and Diminished Social Capital 

Rapid and extensive community changes often destabilize neighborhood social capital,3, 4, 5, 6 including the social networks among residents (bonding social capital) and the linkages that connect neighborhood residents to opportunities, organizations, and services in the larger community (bridging or linking social capital).7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 Depletion of this social capital undermines two aspects of neighborhood organization and culture that support healthy youth development: (1) the organizational capacity of neighborhoods to engage in collective action, that is, the strength of their social bonds and the level of trust that infuses those bonds, and (2) the willingness of neighborhood residents to realize their common interests through collective action, such as addressing neighborhood affairs and monitoring neighborhood activities, especially those involving youth. Fragmented social capital produced by rapid and extensive neighborhood changes weakens or even destroys these two components of neighborhood “collective efficacy.”13, 14 Attenuated social bonds and diminished supervision and support allow youth crime and violence to flourish.6, 13, 14, 15

The Arlanza neighborhood experienced significant negative changes in the 1990s. Industry replaced residential areas, and traditional social networks began to destabilize. The major employer reduced its staff from 7000 to just over 700, forcing many long-term residents to move from Arlanza in pursuit of jobs elsewhere. Such migration undermined the social connections in the neighborhood, weakening its bonding social capital. The bridging social capital provided by employment, local neighborhood associations, and civic clubs also disappeared. Crime and violence in Arlanza increased along with these changing conditions.

A high concentration of disadvantaged youth and low-income Latino families now inhabit the Arlanza area. According to the 2000 U.S. Census,16 58% of the Arlanza population is Latino, about 30% foreign born, mostly of Mexican descent. Nearly a quarter of the residents have no high school diploma or GED. Of approximately 29,000 residents, 42% speak Spanish only or very little English.

These data give only a partial picture of Arlanza, an area socially isolated from the larger community and what it has to offer. Many local residents felt “forgotten” and “unimportant,” perceptions that can significantly affect engagement in the neighborhood. Many families were undocumented, and either afraid to seek or unaware of available social services. The language barrier widened the social divide between social organizations and residents who feared being “discovered” and perhaps deported. The effort to overcome the suspicion that comes from this immigration status is still a key social issue, which must be addressed in the city’s efforts to develop social capital in this community.

Faced with these challenges, the City of Riverside developed a strategic plan for youth violence prevention, which involved the Riverside Youth Crime Prevention Red Team. Plan implementation was overseen by a partnership (the Riverside Youth Violence Prevention Policy Board). A major focus of the neighborhood mobilization component was to identify neighborhood and residents’ assets and create an integrated network to strengthen social capital and the capacity for collective action to improve conditions. For example, an important component of the project was establishing a family and neighborhood resource center to provide community leadership training, facilitate the coordination of social services from various city and county agencies, and provide affordable child care with preschool, information, and referral services.

Recognizing that people are a neighborhood’s greatest asset, the initiative enlisted the help of residents willing to use their own individual capacities on behalf of their neighborhood. The assumption was that, by doing so, residents would begin to rediscover one another and realize that their problems could be solved through ongoing, positive, and cooperative relationships between neighbors, rather than depending on an outside entity to “fix” the problems. Mobilizing community residents to work together would create bonding, bridging, and linking social capital.17, 18, 19

The Challenge of Blending Theory and Practice 

Social and behavioral scientists should shoulder the responsibility of delineating the policy and practical implications of their theories,20, 21, 22 and elected officials must face the challenge of using theory and research to inform public policies. Applying theoretical frameworks to concrete social problems can be daunting. Indeed, what may appear sound on paper often becomes exceedingly complicated in real life.

Social and behavioral scientists must also develop systematic explanatory models that can be confirmed or refuted by empirical data. Regardless of the rigor, however, such scholarly activity does not reveal the effort required to sustain the momentum of a theoretically informed mobilization effort and the motivation of the partners involved. Immediate results are often demanded. Elected officials typically want to see results during their tenure, but problems such as youth violence can be deeply rooted, with immediate resolutions being unrealistic. Overcoming such intractable issues requires a comprehensive and enduring effort. Yet elected officials often want a “quick fix,” knowing they will be held accountable. Patience is required from both elected officials and their constituencies. The Arlanza neighborhood initiative sought to prevent youth violence by focusing on families with children under the age of five. Realizing the outcomes for these children will involve long-term, sustained efforts by the city and local residents, tenaciously adhering to the effort and not abandoning it after two or three years.

Another challenge was balancing fidelity of the intervention and its underlying theory while engaging residents and elected officials at the level of their understanding. Their voices needed be heard and honored, but they also needed to be orchestrated to avoid a cacophony. Understanding the dynamics that unraveled the social fabric of Arlanza was crucial for devising strategies to rebuild social capital and revitalize the neighborhood. That understanding, however, had to be conveyed in terms understandable to residents and community leaders. Although the disruptions in family and neighborhood networks, the lack of role models, and the increased isolation from mainstream life in Riverside all underscored the relevance of these theoretical premises, several real factors had to be considered. These included overcoming neighborhood skepticism and creating buy-in from all stakeholders, connecting community issues to theoretical principles without confusing residents and other participants with theoretical abstractions, and remaining flexible by adjusting to unforeseen circumstances.

The chances of overcoming neighborhood skepticism and achieving buy-in successfully were enhanced by contacting neighborhood residents directly and personally, to win their trust. Local residents were often skeptical about the ability of “outsiders” with “new ideas” to solve longstanding problems. Facilitating a dialogue that helped residents see their circumstances through a different lens, while including their vision in their own terms, was essential.

Connecting neighborhood problems with theoretical principles posed another challenge. Meetings with public officials, often less than 30 minutes long, did not allow for lengthy theoretical explanations. A better approach was to explain the key goals of the project briefly, then leave behind printed materials with information on specific programs and how community members could become involved. For example, it was always important to remind local leaders that re-establishing and maintaining social relationships and accountability were the path to the long-term benefits of reduced youth violence in the community. If time permitted, specifics of the programs and community involvement strategies were discussed in greater detail.

Another issue that arose during implementation was balancing the different agendas of the participating agencies. Although each agency had a niche in which it specialized and an agenda for action, they had to work together for the common goal of helping Arlanza meet its needs, not simply furthering organizational interests.

Fiscal Challenges 

One fiscal challenge was a history of tension in city–county collaborations in Riverside. This surfaced at meetings, especially on the question of who was responsible for funding services, and was aggravated by the fact that both the city and county were facing severe budget cuts. Careful and diplomatic interactions were required to obtain the needed funding and cooperation from the various agencies providing social services to Arlanza.

The Arlanza Neighborhood Initiative also faced the challenge of implementing an intervention without funding in place. The planning phase of this initiative had grant support, but the implementation funding was only gradually acquired over 18 months. Securing necessary funds from a variety of public and private sources was time-intensive and required unanticipated relationship-building effort at the city, county, and state levels.

To maintain fiscal sustainability, the Solander Center was designed to use the monies collected from the two main tenants (i.e., county WIC office and the child care center) for maintenance, repair, and operations. Operating costs were fortunately kept to a minimum, because the Center was on city-owned property and received municipal services from the city-owned utility company.

Political Challenges 

Even well-researched, theory-based interventions may never be implemented if they do not have political support. Earning this support is a specific example of building bridging or linking social capital between the neighborhood and the political decision makers in the city, which is ultimately necessary for political and fiscal support.

The Arlanza Neighborhood Initiative enjoyed the political support of the city council member whose ward included the neighborhood, as well as two other council members. The investment of time and relationship building with these people was strategic to the initial implementation of the initiative. Two years after the project was approved by the city council, however, local elections had occurred: three of seven wards had elected new council members, and the primary focus of city government shifted towards economic development. This did not immediately affect the Arlanza Neighborhood Initiative, but these political shifts had to be navigated carefully to ensure the momentum of this neighborhood mobilization effort and ultimately the success of desired outcomes. Although the City of Riverside is engaged in efforts to increase economic development, the original plans for the Arlanza Initiative remain intact, and the city is currently exploring ways to balance the economic goals of the city with the need to maintain the sustainability of the initiative. The Solander Center continues to offer workshops and seminars on immigration and citizenship, health issues, and how to build stronger social bonds as well as classes on parenting skills, domestic violence prevention, conflict resolution, and education for parents to help their children avoid gang involvement. Home ownership workshops and stress management seminars are under consideration. The support of the city’s political leaders will ultimately determine the outcome of this effort. Understanding how politics operates and what motivates politicians is vital for successful implementation of this initiative.

Social Challenges 

One of the most critical issues to consider when implementing a neighborhood-level initiative is that success hinges largely on the level of trust engendered among the residents themselves: trust in the mobilization effort and trust in each other. In low-income, underserved communities, local residents may be suspicious of, or even hostile to, any person or plan associated or identified with government or educational institutions. Sparkling theories and slick plans may have little currency without forging solid relationships, trust, and a mutual understanding of the social conditions under which neighborhood residents cope and survive. For this intervention to be successful, the residents themselves had to become agents of change and believe in the process. This required time, patience, and relationship building within the neighborhood and between residents and those spearheading the mobilization process. Continued community engagement through the Center’s neighborhood coordinator will aid in mitigating the skepticism of some local residents.