1. Community Building and Social Capital: Can they change housing quality? Susan SaegertGary Winkel City University of New York Graduate Center

2. Community 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

3. 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

4. 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

5. ADC

6. Social Capital and the Revitalization of New York City’s Distressed Inner-City Housing Social Capital and the Revitalization of New York City’s Distressed Inner-City Housing Housing Policy Debate, 9 (1), 17-60 Susan SaegertGary H. Winkel City University of New York Graduate Center

7. Methods 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

8. Building Level Regression Predictors Building Quality + Density + Average education + Female Heads + % employed /pensions + Formal leadership + Prosocial norms +Tenant Association Participation (works through management quality) Survey Reported Crime + Low income + Density + More children - Coops - Community Group Owners - Prosocial norms + Informal participation + Formal leadership

9. 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

10. 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)

11. 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

12. 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

13. 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

14. 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

15. 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)

16. 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

17. Predictors of Building Crime Less Crime when –Residents older –Residents live in building longer

18. 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

19. 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

20. Summary NPI Contact related to more tenant participation and leadership AND better building conditions Some sites have higher pro social norms but not clearly related to NPI Aggressive Community Organizing CBO site had better apartment conditions Prosocial 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

21. Yes Community Building and Social Capital contribute 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.

22. 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