1. Rediscovering the neighbourhood in Neighbourhood Watch and Support
Social Capital:
Rediscovering the neighbourhood in Neighbourhood Watch and Support
Garth Nowland-Foreman
57A Cashmere Road, Otautahi/Christchurch AOTEAROA/NZ
PHONE/FAX:

2. What do you see?
And what does it tell us about community?

3. What Putnam found Newspapers might make us better informed…
But can singing save your life?
…Just as much as your football club!

4. What is social capital?
‘Capital’ refers to the taonga or assets from which you can derive a flow of benefits
Drawing on existing understandings of ‘capital’, such as financial capital and human capital, ‘social capital’ refers to features of social organisation such as networks, norms and trust that increase a society’s productive potential
(Putnam, 1993)

5. Lessons from geese
Trust
Networks
Norms

6. Social capital Shared understandings Good will and trust
Effective interaction between people
Reciprocity, altruism, sense of unity, confidence to participate further
Social capital

7. Social capital is different from other forms of capital in that it is ‘self reinforcing and cumulative’. As such it does not diminish through use, but rather is enhanced. Depletion of social capital is more likely to occur through under-use.
It is by its nature ‘bottom up’, so its never the product of government initiative, but it may be encouraged or diminished by policy initiatives.

8. Social capital and Crime
Criminologists have long identified the power of social networks to deter crime (eg Sampson, 1997) – ‘surveillance’ theories
It could be expected that social capital, (where people are more trusting and economically successful) might be associated with higher levels of property crime – in fact there’s evidence that civic norms and associational networks significantly reduce crime rates – ‘shared norms’ theory (eg Buonanno et al, 2006)

9. Social capital and Crime
There is also evidence to suggest social capital and most especially ‘trust’ reduces incidence of violent crime (eg, Lederman et al, 2000) - ‘social inclusion’ models
Higher organisational participation is associated with lower victimisation & youth crime rates (Sampson & Groves, 1989) – ‘social disorganisation’ theory
There is also some evidence that crime and violence in turn undermine social capital (eg, Paras, 2003)

10. What can we do that might help grow social capital?
What can we avoid doing if we don’t want to diminish social capital?

11. What builds strong communities?
Opportunities for participation
Capacity to mobilise resources
Effective leadership developed
Cooperation – a spirit of giving
(DIA, 1997)

12. What else do you see?
And what else does it tell us about strong communities?

13. Cooperation – a spirit of giving
What else do you see?
Leadership developed
Mobilising resources
Cooperation – a spirit of giving
Participation

14. An uncomfortable finding
Putnam’s most recent study (2007) finds communities with higher diversity have lower social capital –a ‘hunker down’ effect
This challenges both the classic ‘contact’ and ‘conflict’ schools of thought
However, in more diverse communities, trust (even of one’s own race) is lower, as is civic engagement, altruism & community cooperation rarer, and friends are fewer

15. How should we respond?
We need to be as concerned about ‘bridging’ as ‘bonding’ social capital
Varshney (2002) has some interesting lessons from communal violence in India
Putnam (2007) also proposes more proactive efforts to encourage social networking in diverse neighbourhoods
How could we better respond to diversity in our work?

16. A social capital lens
“...We must learn to view the world through a social capital lens. We need to look at front porches as crime fighting tools, treat picnics as public health efforts and see choral groups as occasions of democracy. We will become a better place when assessing social capital impact becomes a standard part of decision-making."
What difference might a ‘social capital lens’ make in our work?