FREE ELECTRONIC LIBRARY - Theses, dissertations, documentation

Pages:     | 1 |   ...   | 10 | 11 || 13 | 14 |   ...   | 28 |

«A Journal of Policy Development and Research HoPe VI Volume 12, Number 1 • 2010 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Office of Policy ...»

-- [ Page 12 ] --

Discussion This study explored the factors that contribute to low-income residents’ development of trust and social relations—the foundations of social capital. Both quantitative and qualitative methodologies helped uncover an important and understudied connection among trust, norms, reciprocity, interactions, and encounters on the one hand and neighborhood structure, facilities, institutions, and public spaces on the other. Multivariate analysis identified the significance of the availability of these neighborhood resources and, to a lesser extent, feelings of place attachment and safety, because neighborhood attributes mattered more for TNR among neighbors than all other individual, household, and neighborhood factors examined. The residents in the study who had access to more neighborhood institutions and public spaces (and who had greater feelings of place attachment and safety) were significantly more likely to trust their neighbors and perceive shared norms and reciprocity among coresidents in their communities. Data from the indepth interviews with residents living in different types of housing and neighborhoods were used to better understand some of the patterns found in the survey data. This rich qualitative data revealed that neighborhood resources were important for generating and sustaining trust and social relations. It was precisely through such institutions and public spaces that residents could observe and interact with their neighbors and where they developed and maintained social ties in the community. In addition to this rather straightforward process, local facilities and public spaces can also generate trust and shared norms among neighbors in a more subtle way: by providing the stage for public familiarity to develop. Repeated encounters in such spaces can build public familiarity as people gain valuable information about each other (that is, about habits and patterns of living) that enable them to identify (or not identify) with a group (Blokland, 2003; Lofland, 1973; Sztompka, 1999). Institutions and public spaces, including childcare centers, parks, libraries, and recreation facilities, offer places where residents can congregate both informally and formally and observe each other in public. These repeated encounters in such spaces can generate public familiarity, a basic component of trust (Sztompka, 1999). Neighborhoods devoid of shared public spaces and institutions may leave residents with few opportunities to observe each other in this way, and, as a result, residents may be more likely to have mistrust—a lack of clear expectations, predictability, and security (Sztompka, 1999) and may be less likely to develop relationships with their neighbors.

Cityscape 53Curley

In addition to shaping the development of trust and interactions among coresidents, neighborhood structures, according to the findings, can also influence the development of relations with outsiders. This was the case for public housing residents who reported that the profound social stigma associated with public housing, combined with the inescapable stark appearance of their neighborhood’s structure, weighed heavily on their encounters and relations with people from outside their community. Ironically, although the physical structure of the pre-HOPE VI Maverick Gardens community often contributed positively to the development of trust, interactions, and social ties among many coresidents, the same physical form negatively affected residents’ ability to form relations with nonresidents (and contributed to overbearing, draining relationships with neighbors for some).

Policy Implications and Future Research Transforming poverty-concentrated housing developments into mixed-income or mixed-tenure communities has become popular policy practice in the United States and in Western Europe, Australia, and Canada. Aside from the improvements in housing quality, one expectation of this approach is that lower income people living in a more mixed environment will have greater access to social capital. Contrary to this expectation, numerous studies have found that such initiatives do not produce anticipated effects on at least one prerequisite for social capital—social networks.

The current research suggests that this approach may also not have the desired effect on another important foundation of social capital—trust, norms, and reciprocity. The evidence from this study indicates that these prerequisites for social capital depend not on neighborhood poverty concentration but on neighborhood facilities and public spaces, the feeling of attachment to place, and the feeling of safety. Thus, the connection between income mix and social capital made by some policymakers and academics may be overstated.25 The qualitative evidence from the current study confirms that spatial arrangements of neighborhoods, public spaces, and facilities are significant for residents’ encounters with others and, subsequently, for the development of public familiarity, trust, and social relations in neighborhoods. Simply relocating residents to lower poverty areas does not result in relocatees being well integrated or enmeshed in rich, new social worlds that provide them with access to social leverage and upward mobility opportunities. Rather than simply trying to place residents in communities with the “right” social mix, a more effective strategy for encouraging the development of social capital may be building, preserving, and improving public spaces, facilities, and institutions that serve a variety of residents; making communities safe;

fostering a sense of community and attachment to place; and providing residents opportunities to observe and meet one another.26 Housing programs like HOPE VI that seek to improve prospects for upward mobility should move beyond the fixation on mixed neighborhoods and lower poverty rates by broadening the definition of desirable neighborhoods to include “opportunity areas” (Briggs, 2006): resource-rich areas with ample social supports, good-quality services, institutions and public spaces, transportation, schools, and entry-level jobs with career ladders.

Dekker and Bolt (2005) similarly found that socioeconomic status (that is, higher income and more education) was not associated with strong levels of social capital, suggesting that social mixing may be “a counter-intuitive strategy to strengthen social cohesion” (Dekker and Bolt, 2005: 2468).

Although not the focus of this article, encounters in public space could possibly lead to or enhance existing tensions and conflicts among groups in a neighborhood.

–  –  –

Improving neighborhood resources for lower income people may be particularly important not only because of the potential effect on public familiarity, trust, and social ties (and therefore social capital) but also for the simple fact that high-quality services and resources can compensate for lower individual resources. Further, quality and accessible resources in the neighborhood may reduce the likelihood of low-income residents “draining” or being drained by other lower income people (Curley, 2008). Finally, the important functions of public space in promoting familiarity, trust, norms, and social contacts should be kept in the forefront of any discussion of urban redevelopment. For example, public spaces can be designed as friendly places with design features and seating arrangements that promote flexible use and maximize potential opportunities for repeated encounters, observations, and interactions (Whyte, 1988). Public spaces can play an important role in enhancing everyday life in communities, and policies and initiatives that support or allow the privatization of public spaces in urban areas must also consider how these changes may negatively affect a community’s social fabric (Holland et al., 2007).27 A key contribution of this study is that it highlights the significance of neighborhood resources for the development of social capital. Although previous research has suggested that neighborhood institutions are important for the stability of communities, few studies have considered the role neighborhood structure, local facilities, and public spaces play in the social capital-building process among residents. Thus, future research and policy discussions on social capital and neighborhoods should carefully consider physical structure, local institutions, and public spaces.

More qualitative and quantitative research is needed to further assess the role of different types of neighborhood resources and determine whether certain institutions or public spaces better provide more useful meeting places, better promote familiarity and trust, or provide greater access to resources or other social capital-building opportunities. Future studies could also investigate the extent to which different design features of public spaces, neighborhood structures, and facilities promote or inhibit encounters with other residents and with nonresidents.

Appendix A Index Measures Trust, norms, and reciprocity (TNR) (11-item index, Cronbach’s α =.78) Scores ranged from a low of 0 to a high of 1. (True/false, coded 1/0 [reverse coded as necessary])

1. My neighbors and I want the same things from this neighborhood.

2. I care what my neighbors think of my actions.

3. Most of the residents in this neighborhood are respectful of their neighbors.

4. People in this neighborhood can be trusted.

5. People living here do not share the same values.

See Smith (1996) and Lofland (1998) for further discussion on the privatization and regulation of public space. Smith warns that in many cities public spaces have been transformed, purified, and privatized to accommodate and attract new, higher income urban dwellers, investors, and tourist consumers.

–  –  –

6. People living in this neighborhood generally do not get along with each other.

7. I have no influence over what this neighborhood is like.

8. If there is a problem in this neighborhood people who live here can solve it.

9. People around here are willing to help their neighbors.

10. I can recognize most of the people who live in this neighborhood.

11. Very few of my neighbors know me.

Neighborhood institutions, facilities, and public spaces (15-item index, Cronbach’s α =.74) Scores ranged from a low of 0 (few resources) to a high of 1 (many resources).

Are the following services available in your neighborhood? (yes [1]/no [0])

1. Health care.

2. Afterschool programs.

3. Supermarket/grocery.

4. Recreation for youth.

5. Recreation for adults.

6. Childcare.

7. Churches.

8. Library.

9. Transportation.

10. Employment services.

11. Job training.

12. Food pantry.

13. Parks or playgrounds.

14. Lack of social services in the neighborhood (some/big problem [0] vs. no problem [1]).

15. Have you needed any services and not been able to get them? (yes [0]/no [1]).

Place attachment (4-item index, Cronbach’s α =.82) Scores ranged from a low of 0 (negative) to a high of 1 (positive).

1. I think this neighborhood is a good place for me to live.

2. I feel at home in this neighborhood.

3. It is very important to me to live in this particular community.

4. I expect to live in this neighborhood for a long time.

Safety index (8-item index, Cronbach’s α =.79) Scores ranged from a low of 0 (unsafe) to a high of 1 (safe).

1. Do you feel safe in the neighborhood? (y/n)

2. Do police patrol neighborhood? (y/n)

3. Satisfaction with police patrols. (y/n)

–  –  –

4. Do the police come when called?

5. I feel physically safe in this neighborhood (true/false).

6. Residents in this neighborhood worry about illegal activities occurring in the neighborhood.

7. People living in this neighborhood worry about being physically attacked.

8. Residents in this neighborhood do not worry about stealing or thefts.

Neighborhood problems (13-item index, Cronbach’s α =.96) (some/big problem [1] vs. no problem [0]) [Scores ranged from 1 (some/big problem) to 0 (no problem)?]

1. Shootings.

2. People being attacked/robbery.

3. Rape/sexual attacks.

4. People selling drugs.

5. People using drugs.

6. Gangs.

7. Groups of people just hanging out.

8. Police not coming when called.

9. Graffiti.

10. Lack of outside lighting.

11. Trash in parking lots, on sidewalks, and on lawns.

12. Unattractive common outdoor areas.

13. Lack of recreational space.

Acknowledgments This research was funded in part through a U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Doctoral Dissertation Research Grant and the Boston Housing Authority. The author thanks the residents of Maverick for their participation and colleagues at OTB for their helpful comments on an earlier version of this article.

Author Alexandra M. Curley is a guest researcher in the Department of Urban Renewal and Housing at the OTB Research Institute for Housing, Urban and Mobility Studies at Delft University of Technology in The Netherlands.

–  –  –

References Blokland, Talja. 2003. Urban Bonds. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Polity.

Blokland, Talja, and Floris Noordhoff. 2008. “The Weakness of Weak Ties: Social Capital To Get Ahead Among the Urban Poor in Rotterdam and Amsterdam.” In Networked Urbanism: Social

Capital in the City, edited by Talja Blokland and Mike Savage. Aldershot, United Kingdom: Ashgate:


Bourdieu, Pierre. 1986. “The Forms of Capital.” In Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education, edited by John Richardson. New York: Greenwood Press: 241–258.

Briggs, Xavier de Souza. 2006. “Assisted Housing Mobility and the Success of Low-Income Minority Families: Lessons for Policy, Practice and Future Research,” Northwestern Journal of Law and Social Policy 1 (1): 25–61.

———. 1998. “Brown Kids in White Suburbs: Housing Mobility and the Many Faces of Social Capital,” Housing Policy Debate 9 (1): 177–221.

Pages:     | 1 |   ...   | 10 | 11 || 13 | 14 |   ...   | 28 |

Similar works:

«ACCREDITATION POLICY AND PROCEDURE MANUAL Effective for Evaluations During the 2010-2011 Accreditation Cycle Incorporates all changes approved by the ABET Board of Directors as of October 31, 2009 Applied Science Accreditation Commission Computing Accreditation Commission Engineering Accreditation Commission Technology Accreditation Commission ABET, Inc. 111 Market Place, Suite 1050 Baltimore, MD 21202 Telephone: 410-347-7700 Fax: 410-625-2238 E-mail: accreditation@abet.org Website:...»

«Standards for Community Services Standard 9 (Employee and volunteer support) GUIDE TO DISPUTE RESOLUTION FOR EMPLOYEES AND VOLUNTEERS POLICY TEMPLATE ABOUT THIS POLICY AREA This policy guides how the organisation manages and resolves disputes involving employees or volunteers. Throughout this policy and associated procedures, delete reference to volunteers (or employees) if your service operates with only employees (or only volunteers). A written dispute resolution for employees and volunteers...»

«TOWARDS A REEVALUATION OF THE TONINÁ POLITY Eric TaladoirE Unité Mixte de Recherche, “Archéologie des Amériques”, Université Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne AbstrAct: Among the numerous polities of the Usumacinta region, Toniná stands as the worst defined. In spite of its reduced population, Toniná developed an aggressive policy, and won several victories upon close-by and distant cities as well. This article tries, from the available archaeological and epigraphic data, to draw a more...»

«Manual on the Development of Cleaner Production Policies— Approaches and Instruments Guidelines for National Cleaner Production Centres and Programmes Vienna, October 2002 UNIDO CP Programme prepared by: Mr. Pawel Kazmierczyk (UNIDO CP Policy Consultant) under the direction of Ms. Mayra Regina Sanchez Osuna and Ms. Petra Schwager-Quijano Cleaner Production and Environmental Management Branch Programme Development and Technical Cooperation Division, UNIDO Table of Contents: BACKGROUND AND...»

«RESEARCH PAPERS Centre for Cultural Policy Studies University of Warwick Research Papers No 8 Series Editors: Oliver Bennett and Jeremy Ahearne The Methodological Challenge of Cross-National Research: comparing cultural policy in Britain and Italy Eleonora Belfiore Research Fellow Centre for Cultural Policy Studies TABLE OF CONTENTS Abstract 3 INTRODUCTION 3 THE USE AND ABUSE OF CULTURAL STATISTICS IN CROSS-NATIONAL RESEARCH 4 CULTURAL POLICY ACROSS NATIONAL BOUNDARIES: THE “MODELS OF...»

«C O M P A R A T I V E A N D I N T E R N A T I O N A L E D U C AT I O N : A D I V E R S I T Y O F V O I C E S Personalisation of Education in Contexts Policy Critique and Theories of Personal Improvement Monica E. Mincu (Ed.) Personalisation of Education in Contexts COMPARATIVE AND INTERNATIONAL EDUCATION: A Diversity of Voices Volume 18 Series Editors Allan Pitman University of Western Ontario, Canada Vandra Masemann University of Toronto, Canada Miguel A. Pereyra University of Granada...»

«Michael Böcher and Annette Elisabeth Töller Inherent Dynamics and Chance as Drivers in Environmental Policy? An Approach to Explaining Environmental Policy Decisions Paper to be presented at the International Conference on Public Policy Milan 2015 Panel T01P08 Theories and conceptions of the political process beyond “Policy Cycle” and “Multiple Streams” Content 1. Introduction 2. Environmental policy processes between policy cycle and garbage can. 5 2.1 Politics as a problem-solving...»

«EMEA POLICY ADMINISTRATION SYSTEMS GENERAL INSURANCE ABCD VENDOR VIEW Craig Beattie January, 2014 This authorised reprint contains material excerpted from a recent Celent report profiling and evaluating 52 different policy administration systems. The full report is over 270 pages long. This report was not sponsored by Adacta in any way. This reprint was prepared specifically for Adacta, but the analysis presented has not been changed from that presented in the full report. For more information...»

«EN EN EN EUROPEAN COMMISSION Brussels, 27.1.2011 COM(2011) 15 final GREEN PAPER on the modernisation of EU public procurement policy Towards a more efficient European Procurement Market EN EN TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. What are public procurement rules about? 1.1. Purchasing activities 1.2. Public contracts 1.3. Public purchasers 2. Improve the toolbox for contracting authorities 2.1. Modernise procedures 2.2. Specific instruments for small contracting authorities 2.3. Public-public cooperation 2.4....»

«HUDSON INSURANCE COMPANY ARCHITECTS, ENGINEERS & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY INSURANCE POLICY This is a Claims Made and Reported Policy. Please Read it Carefully. All words that are in bold face type have special meaning set forth in Section V., DEFINITIONS, of this Policy. Throughout this Policy, the words, you and your refer to the Named Insured shown in the Certificate of Declarations and any other individual or entity qualifying as an Insured under this Policy. The words...»

«Chapter 1 L InTroducTIon Science Wars and Policy Wars W hen considering the importance of science in policymaking, common wisdom contends that keeping science as far as possible from social and political concerns would be the best way to ensure science’s reliability. This intuition is captured in the value-free ideal for science—that social, ethical, and political values should have no influence over the reasoning of scientists, and that scientists should proceed in their work with as...»

«211 CMR 65.00 211 CMR 65.00: LONG-TERM CARE INSURANCE Sections 65.01: Purpose 65.02: Applicability 65.03: Authority 65.04: Definitions 65.05: Minimum Standards for Individual Policies 65.06: Mandatory Benefit Offers for Individual Policies 65.07: Form and Rate Filing Procedures for Individual Policies 65.08: Requirements for Agent Training and Marketing 65.09: Requirements for Disclosure 65.10: Protection against Unintentional Lapse 65.11: Prohibition against Post-Claims Underwriting 65.12:...»

<<  HOME   |    CONTACTS
2016 www.theses.xlibx.info - Theses, dissertations, documentation

Materials of this site are available for review, all rights belong to their respective owners.
If you do not agree with the fact that your material is placed on this site, please, email us, we will within 1-2 business days delete him.