D OCKING P ROTEÍNA -L IGANDO CON CDOCK

The mechanisms linking community strengths and wider social outcomes are somewhat more restricted than those for community activities because some of the elements of community strength are important primarily in facilitating activities, rather than delivering impacts directly. In particular, organisational capacity, which is vital for community activity, delivers little in the way of wider social outcomes in itself. This section therefore focuses on community resources and community wiring.

Community resources

Whilst the impacts of financial and physical assets held by communities are largely realised through mechanisms to do with community activity, particularly community self-help (Aiken et al, 2011), there are direct connections between human

resources in terms of the personal development that community members undergo through participation processes and wider social outcomes. The evidence

suggests, unsurprisingly, that the additional skills, confidence and experience gained through community participation enables individuals to improve their educational attainment and employment prospects (ODPM, 2005; Rogers and Robinson, 2004). Again, the key concern associated with this mechanism is the extent to which it further advantages those individuals and communities which are already advantaged. Thus, for example, there is evidence that disadvantaged and

Chapter 5

147 excluded groups are more likely to favour ‘passive’ forms of engagement (Martin and Boaz, 2000), which are less likely to deliver learning and personal

development than more ‘active’ approaches.

Table 5.5 below summarises these postulated mechanisms linking community resources to wider social outcomes, as well as the potential issues which may undermine their operation.

Table 5.5 – Community resources mechanisms of additionality

Mechanism Description

‘Participation helps people learn useful things that can be used elsewhere’

The skills, confidence and experience gained

through community participation processes enables people to improve their educational attainment and employment prospects.

Issues affecting operation of these mechanisms

 Unequal capacity between communities and individuals reinforcing inequalities

Community wiring

In addition to the employment impacts of additional skills, there is substantial evidence to support the idea that the development of networks through community participation improves employment outcomes for those involved by connecting them to job opportunities (Rogers and Robinson, 2004; Granovetter, 1973;

Aguilera, 2002).

Alongside this, there is a range of evidence relating to the impacts of social capital, although there is some dubiety about the mechanisms involved and the ways in which different types of social capital may trigger different mechanisms. Thus the evidence points to clear correlations between strong community networks and better mental and physical health (Baum et al, 2000; Veenstra, 2000; Case et al, 1992; Berkman and Glass, 2000). Whilst the causality between social

connectedness and health is not entirely clear, it appears to be a combination of two mechanisms. Firstly, the intrinsic value of family and friendship networks seems to generate better mental wellbeing in people (Lelkes, 2010) and, secondly, the emotional and practical support available through such networks can help to improve people’s management of stress and health conditions (Kawachi and Berkman, 2001).

Chapter 5

148 Further mechanisms relating to community wiring are suggested by evidence in the fields of education and crime. In terms of education, Coleman, one of the key originators of the ideas of social capital, demonstrated that supportive social

networks improve educational outcomes (Coleman, 1988). The central mechanism here is the ways in which shared norms within a closely connected, cohesive community can reduce the likelihood of individuals dropping out of education because of the stigma attached. And in relation to crime, there is evidence that stronger social networks are preventative of crime and social disorder (van Steden et al, 2011). Rogers and Robinson (2004) suggest that this may operate through two mechanisms – ‘guardianship’ whereby neighbours look out for each other and the community, and ‘socialisation’ whereby communities encourage the

internalisation of positive, sociable norms.

In terms of the issues which may undermine or counteract the additionality produced by these mechanisms, there are two key areas to consider. Firstly, inequality again raises its ugly head, since there is evidence that community participation may enable those who are already ‘rich’ in terms of social

connections to get even richer, particularly in terms of ‘linking social capital’ which connects communities to more powerful individuals and organisations (Skidmore et al, 2006). Similarly, Kearns (2003) points to the ways in which existing networks of advantage can be used as ‘old boy networks’ to maintain privilege and exclude other social groups.

Secondly, as noted in the previous chapter, there is considerable uncertainty regarding the ideal combination of the different elements of community wiring.

Indeed, it seems reasonable to argue that different combinations will be more productive or more problematic in different spheres. Thus tightly bonded

communities may generate significant positives in terms of health outcomes, for example, but can also be exclusive and insular, limiting the employment benefits from wider networks and potentially even creating ‘public bads’ through the reinforcement of anti-social norms (Forrest and Kearns, 1999).

Chapter 5

149 Table 5.6 below summarises these postulated mechanisms linking community wiring to wider social outcomes, as well as the potential issues which may undermine their operation.

Table 5.6 – Community wiring mechanisms of additionality

Mechanism Description

‘Networks help people

move on in work’ Social connections provide information about and access to employment opportunities which enable people to get into work and progress to better jobs.

‘Relationships help people

feel better’ Social connections and friendships are inherently good for human beings, improving their mental wellbeing.

‘Supportive relationships

help people deal with life’ Support from social networks helps people manage stresses and health conditions.

‘Communities can help

keep people in school’ Shared norms of educational attainment within connected communities can help to keep people engaged with education by reinforcing the stigma of dropping out.

‘Communities can act as guardians’

In well connected communities, neighbours are more likely to look out for each other and thereby prevent crime.

‘Communities can

reinforce good behaviour’

In well connected communities, people may be socialised to accept positive norms and thereby not to engage in criminal or anti-social behaviour.

Issues affecting operation of these mechanisms

 Inequalities in terms of existing networks and skills may help the rich get richer in terms of connections

 Forms of community wiring which are positive in one context may be unproductive or even negative in another