Strengthening Neighborhoods by Developing Community Networks

Abstract

Many urban neighborhoods are in trouble, as are youths and families who reside in them. Most vulnerable are neighborhoods affected by high levels of poverty and racial segregation (Massey & Denton, 1993). Changes in employment patterns such as decline in manufacturing jobs, increasing suburbanization, globalization of jobs, and racial discrimination in hiring have undermined already frail economies (Wilson, 1996). The result has been unraveling of ties and community life. Many lament perceived loss of a sense of community in local neighborhoods. This loss is often characterized by too little communication and too much isolation (Kotlowitz, 1991). Striking is continuing decrease in interaction among families, which works against community building and mutual problem solving. In addition, poorest urban communities have become isolated (Wilson, 1996); although many impoverished neighborhoods are located near more affluent areas, people in poor communities may be socially isolated from larger mainstream society. Further, these neighborhoods may have low levels of over their immediate environment, including influences that adversely affect their children. Frequently, families and children receive limited support in coping with stress of everyday life in a modern, complex society. Consequently, neighborhoods and sometimes families are disorganized and unable to deal with issues they face. This has a deleterious affect on young people. Often youths experience what Lerner (1995) called rotten outcomes, in which children's potential is not realized. Moreover, these weak community structures overshadow opportunities for optimum development of youths, thus facilitating survival of gangs and presence of drug abuse, early pregnancy, and school failure. Spergel (1995) believed that social disorganization allows gang activity to thrive and that community mobilization is important to reducing conditions that allow gangs to develop. Social organization - the sharing of behavior and outlook in a community, which depends on the group's isolation from broader society [and] material assets and resources they control (Wilson, 1996, p. 66) - also affects role of culture. Neighborhoods that feature higher levels of organization - that is, neighborhoods that integrate adults by means of an extensive set of obligations, expectations, and networks - are in a better position to and supervise activities and behavior of children. Youngsters know they will be held accountable for their individual and group action; at same time, they know they can rely on neighborhood adults for support and guidance. (pp. 61-62) Similarly, Ianni (1989) discussed importance of clear community standards, expectations, and structure in supporting children. Coleman and Hoffer (1987) argued that capital (relationship and organizational skills) is as important as human capital (education and job skills). All suggested importance of clear expectations, caring and support, and opportunities for participation in fostering youth development (Benard, 1992). Services often are too poorly designed to meet needs of youths and families from low-income, multicultural communities (Specht & Courtney, 1994) and do too little to contribute to building an overall neighborhood structure. Services and funding are fragmented, which minimizes efforts to build supports. Few incentives are in place that would reduce this fragmentation and encourage coordination. Community members or recipients of services may not be valued or involved in planning processes, which are often centralized and expert driven. As a consequence, existing service arrangements have not always fostered community development or empowerment. Specialization, narrowly focused funding streams, and agency competition for scarce resources have meant that traditional services are not always assessable, affordable, appropriate, or comprehensive. …