CR6: Social Capital and Asset-Based Community Development
According to Mathie and Cunningham (2003), Asset based Community development, also known as the ABCD model, is an “innovative strategy for community-driven development in urban neighborhoods and rural communities” and also “… an alternative to needs-based approaches to development.”One of the reasons that the ABCD model is appealing is because it assumes that there are many resources that have gone unperceived by the community, but figures that the community can recognize and assemble these resources. Therefore, creating “local economic opportunity” (Mathie & Cunningham, 2003).
The ABCD model encompasses four vital components. One of the four components is the theory and practice of appreciative inquiry. This is one of the first components of the ABCD model. The practice of appreciative inquiry concentrates on former favorable results and encourages effective change within local communities and organizations (Mathie & Cunningham, 2003). A second component of the ABCD model is the concept of social capital as an asset for community development. Social capital can be seen as “… the potential support and assistance that stem from the social relationships they have cultivated or inherited through family or class membership” (Mathie & Cunningham, 2003). In other words, as stated by Woolcot & Narayan (2000) “it is not what you know, but who you know.” For myself, I never really thought to think about social capital until attending Dominican. In my 3 ½ years at this school, I’ve been told by countless people to form meaningful connections and relationships with people at my community partner site, professors, guest speakers, job supervisors, and even other current and former Dominican students. As I’m preparing for graduation in the spring, I can see how impactful these relationships will be for myself. I can only imagine the impact that these relationships could make for local community members.
The third component of the ABCD model is the theory of economic development. Community economic development is “economic development at the community level” (Mathie & Cunningham, 2003). In addition, the perspective of individual capacity building understands CED “…as the by-product of the economic success of individuals” (Mathies & Cunningham, 2003). In other words, collective action is not the intended result. According to Mathie and Cunningham (2003), the ABCD model and CED model are different from one another because the ABCD model takes on the perspective of group capacity, while the CED model is centered around the perspective of individual capacity. Lastly, the fourth component of the ABCD model is lessons learned from the links between participatory development, citizenship, and civil society. This component of the model focuses on “… relocation of power to communities — power that has otherwise been held by external agencies” (Mathies & Cunningham, 2003). This part of the ABCD model is very significant because it includes giving a voice back to communities that have been silenced. This component of the model also suggests that “… NGOs and local governments that use the ABCD approach are deliberate in leading by stepping back, strengthening the associational base of collective action in communities, and encouraging their federation as a means by which communities engage with external institutions on their own terms” (Mathies & Cunningham, 2003). When NGOs and local communities take a step back, in order to encourage action as a collective group within communities.
On the other hand, there is also community economic development, also known as the CED model. The CED model “… has been described as a strategy that includes a wide range of economic activities and programs for developing low-income communities such as affordable housing and small business development” (Clay & Jones, 2009). Fortunately, the CED model insists on participation from the local communities in which the model is being implemented (Clay & Jones, 2009). The emphasis on local participation within this model really shows the dedication to the communities in which the model is being used.
With the community I work with a Ritter Center, some assets, in terms of social capital would be forming relationships with the Dominican students and other volunteers. As students, attending a private university in Marin County, we have access to many resources and have knowledge on many topics that community members might want to be informed about. Also, Service Learning students have the ability to give a voice back to the communities in which they work. As of now, I’m not sure if any community members have reached out to any of the Dominican students at the Ritter Center, but by making what seems like a minor relationship, can make all the difference. I know for a fact that many community members have formed relationships with volunteers in the food pantry. This is another asset for this community that might go unnoticed. Volunteers at the Ritter Center all come from different backgrounds and might have connections of their own. By understanding assets and forms of capital in the community, it will be easier to get information about the Census out to individuals who are part of the Hard-to-Count community. For example, several volunteers have stated that they greet many of the community members when they’re outside of the food pantry. Since these volunteers have already formed relationships with certain community members, they have the opportunity to spread information about the 2020 Census. I think it would be beneficial for a small selection of these volunteers to discuss the 2020 Census during the food pantry and outside of it if they have the opportunity to do so.
