Social Capital and Welfare Reform: Organizations, Congregations, and Communities

SOCIAL CAPITAL AND WELFARE REFORM

SOCIAL CAPITAL AND WELFARE REFORM

Organizations, Congregations, and Communities

Jo Anne Schneider

COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY PRESS

NEW YORK

Columbia University Press

Publishers Since 1893

New York   Chichester, West Sussex

cup.columbia.edu

Copyright © 2006 Columbia University Press

All rights reserved

E-ISBN 978-0-231-50117-0

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Schneider, Jo Anne, 1959–

Social capital and welfare reform : organizations, congregations, and communities /

Jo Anne Schneider.

p. cm.

Includes bibliographical references and index.

ISBN 0–231–12650–6 (cloth: alk. paper)—ISBN 0–231–12651–4 (pbk.)

1. Public welfare—United States. 2. Social capital (Sociology)—United States. I. Title.

HV95.S353 2006

361.2′5′0973—dc22

2005048411

A Columbia University Press E-book.

CUP would be pleased to hear about your reading experience with this e-book at cup-ebook@columbia.edu.

CONTENTS

Acknowledgments

  1.  Introduction

PART I.   FACTORS INFLUENCING IMPLEMENTATION OF WELFARE REFORM

  2.  The Federal and State Policy Context for Welfare Reform

  3.  Local Government Systems

  4.  Social Service Organizations

  5.  Social Service Systems

  6.  Labor Markets and Individual Career Paths

  7.  Family Survival Strategies and Social Capital

  8.  Comparisons Among Worker Types

PART II.   SOCIAL CAPITAL AND COMMUNITY CONTEXT

  9.  Social Service Agency Use and Social Capital

10. Agencies and Social Capital

11. Faith Communities and Social Capital

12. Faith, Works, and Community: Connections Among Nonprofits, Government, and Congregations

13. Advocacy and Social Capital

14. Conclusion: Public Policy and Social Capital

Appendix A. Methods and Project Descriptions

Appendix B. Organizations

Appendix C. Family Types and People Profiled in the Book

Notes

References

Index

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This book has been a journey of more than 10 years with many people and institutions providing support along the way. There are many more than I can name here. First and foremost, I wish to thank the families and organizations that shared their experience with me and the other researchers involved in the various projects. Several organizations and community members deserve special thanks: Ed Schwartz and the staff at the Institute for the Study of Civic Values, Colleen O’Connell, Kristen Rantanan, Reverend Olen Arrington Jr., Olatoye Baiyewu, Guida Brown, Tony Garcia, Dan Melyon, Marcus White, Jim Bartos, and Wendy Humphreys.

State government officials in both Pennsylvania and Wisconsin graciously provided data and facilitated research for the project. I particularly thank Edward Zogby, David Florey, Don Jose Stovall, Dennis Putze, Adeline Robinson, Jim Kennedy, Ed Kamin, Jeffrey Sachse, J. Jean Rogers, and Eliza Lebkicher.

Many students from several colleges worked with me in conducting this research. Most were involved in internships, service learning classes, independent studies, and graduate thesis and dissertation work while attending Bryn Mawr, Haverford, Hope College, the University of Pennsylvania, the Community College of Pennsylvania, the University of Wisconsin–Parkside, and University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee, among others. I am grateful for their assistance. Colleagues from the University of Wisconsin–Parkside and the University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee were also integral parts of the Neighborhood Settlement House research team, and Maria Lydia Spinelli, an independent researcher, worked on the Kenosha Social Capital Study. Several students and colleagues deserve particular recognition. In Philadelphia, they include Robin Ebright, Melissa Smiley, Mathew Wickens, Julie Simon, and Sophia Javid. The Kenosha research project team included Theresa Embury, Maria Lydia Spinelli, Carol Jones, Calvin Lucas, Tania Rodriquez, Karen Szalapski, Elda Torres, Traci Rabelhoffer, Marin Rocha Jr., Latisha Riser, and Meghan Mumford. Milwaukee research was conducted by James Harris, Michael Barndt, Florence Kyomugisha, Amanda Beaver, Katie Cahoon, Theresa Embury, Mildred Spann, and Anne Statham. Regina Miller, Melanie Grant, Lane Blaquiere, and Jason Brady assisted in organizing data for analysis.

Photographs from Milwaukee and Kenosha were provided by Tom Fritz Studio. Joseph Labolito supplied photographs of Philadelphia. Initial design for tables and figures was done by Robert Cronan, Lucidity Design.

Funding for the research came from the Philadelphia Private Industry Council, the Petit foundation, the Aspen Institute Non-profit Sector Research Fund, and the Palmer Foundation. The Annie E. Casey Foundation was instrumental in providing support for development of the manuscript and publication assistance for tables, photos and other costs for the book. I particularly want to thank Doretha Carter, Audrey Jordan and Ralph Smith at the Casey Foundation for their ongoing support. A companion policy report to the book, The Role of Social Capital in Building Healthy Communities, is available through the Casey foundation. Analysis of the relationship of social geography and social capital, originally included in this manuscript, is also available as a Casey foundation report: Social Capital and Social Geography.

A number of colleagues and friends provided helpful comments on earlier drafts of the book. I am especially thankful to Marcella Ridlen Ray, Arthur McKee, Michael Foley, Richard Wood, and Bob Wineburg. Alison Anderson and Ellen Coughlin provided editorial assistance. I am also grateful to John Michel for his guidance in developing this project.

Finally, I thank Virginia Hodgkinson and the staff at the Center for the Study of Voluntary Organizations and Service at Georgetown Public Policy Institute, Georgetown University, and Dean Hoge, Michael Foley, and the staff at the Life Cycle Institute, Catholic University, for providing the supportive institutional environments needed to develop this book.

CHAPTER 1

Introduction

Jaysa¹ moves from welfare to work, taking a day-care job at the nonprofit that hosted her community-service job placement. Jaysa had become part of the close network of program participants and staff at the agency, establishing trusting friendships through shared culture. She uses the resources of the social service agency to supplement her wages and provide social supports for herself and her children. Connections allow Jaysa to fulfill the goals of welfare reform, yet she earns poverty-level wages. Although her abilities fit well with this social service agency, she has not yet developed the skills or connections to find a better-paying job.

An interfaith coalition develops a model program that teams church members with low-income families to help them negotiate between the worlds of work, family, and government aid. Despite important successes, the program runs into several problems. Limited funding through short-term grants makes it difficult to keep staff with appropriate skills. More important, some churches find that the families they intend to help have problems beyond the skills of volunteers. Even with a well-designed program and connections to organizations that can successfully implement programs, this initiative runs into structural problems that cause it to be discontinued after one year.

The 1996 U.S. welfare reform legislation depends on the ability of states and localities to move large numbers of people on public assistance from welfare to permanent work paying family-supporting wages. The Personal Responsibility, Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 ended the entitlement to cash and medical assistance for low-income people with children that had existed in the United States since the 1930s (Handler and Hasenfeld 1991;Katz 1989). Federal Aid for Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) was replaced by a block-grant system that gives states enormous flexibility in designing their programs, provided that they prove that an increasing percentage of their welfare caseload are engaged in work-related activities. Recipients are permanently barred from getting any public assistance after receiving aid for a cumulative five years over a lifetime.² Like Jaysa, many welfare recipients have found jobs under the new system. However, again like Jaysa, a large number do not earn enough to fulfill their basic needs without either government or private supports.

Understanding the dynamic among government, nonprofit, and for profit service providers, families receiving service, and employers becomes important in designing successful programs. Welfare recipients will not magically find family-supporting employment. The legislation envisions a host of programs designed to help people locate jobs; gain adequate basic and job-specific skills; and provide day care, transportation, and social supports. In the U.S. system of third party government (Salamon 1987:110), most of these services will be provided through subcontracts to nonprofits, for-profits, and faith-based organizations. For example, the interfaith model program provided a supplement to government-contracted welfare-to-work programs. This program, and the agency that served Jaysa, both played instrumental roles in implementing welfare reform. However, like the interfaith program, these programs have had mixed results and faced challenges due to reduced funding, unexpected participant needs, and a number of other issues.

Using data from a series of projects in Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, this book addresses two questions regarding U.S. welfare policy in the 1990s:

1. Why do some families in a community succeed in meeting their education, work, and lifestyle goals while others fail?

2. What is the role of community institutions in this process?

APPROACHES TO SOCIAL WELFARE POLICY

Both implementing the enormous changes engendered by the 1996 reforms and working toward future welfare reform legislation requires understanding why social programs succeed and fail. Most public policy and management theory is based on the assumption that provider organizations and government are making a product as a factory does. In the case of welfare reform, the raw materials are welfare recipients. Government sets the design specifications for the production process by creating legislation and regulations for specific programs. Government then contracts with providers to build the product: welfare recipients who will permanently move into the paid labor force. If the contracting agencies follow the design specifications correctly, they should produce this desired outcome.

But people are not widgets. The raw material consists of people with free will and a variety of strengths and weaknesses. Welfare recipients are extremely diverse. Each type of family needs appropriate aid in order to succeed. Nor do the contracting agencies function like factories with well-oiled machines. They are community institutions staffed by people with their own unique sets of strengths and weaknesses. These organizations are as varied as the people they serve. They respond to a variety of constituencies, including government, in creating their programs and carrying out their work.

Figure 1.1. Five factors influencing implementation of welfare reform.

Multiple models offer appropriate alternatives to different populations. Welfare-reform policies continue to fail, in part, because they do not recognize the diversity within both the population served and the organizations providing service. Policy based on factory models also ignores the impact of larger socioeconomic factors and government regulations themselves on both recipients and providers. Understanding the implementation of social welfare policy involves looking at the dynamic among these multiple factors. Welfare-reform policy will succeed only when it recognizes that the diversity of programs is the real strength of contracting with the for-profit and nonprofit sector. Government also needs to realize that individual institutions are capable of effectively serving a portion of the public assistance population only because they arise out of one sector of the local community.

The appropriate role of government in this scenario is to facilitate the relationship among organizations with different strengths by creating policies that encourage agencies to foster bridges among different populations seeking services and various kinds of employers and other institutions that can fulfill their needs. To effectively function in this facilitator role, government must develop an understanding of local-level complexity. Complexity is not chaos but variation within a set of key factors (figure 1.1):

1. The government policies that shape programs

2. The nature of the organizations providing service

3. The nature of the local implementation system

4. The socioeconomic system of the locality

5. The nature of the population receiving service

By looking at the relationship among these critical components, policy makers and community leaders together can discern the patterns within the local community and develop appropriate programs to best meet the general goals of welfare reform. Understanding relationships among these various components in a complex system involves examining the interactions among the various institutions and individuals that participate in that system.

Social capital serves as the intervening element among these five components. Social capital refers to the social relationships and patterns of reciprocal, enforceable trust that enable people and institutions to gain access to such resources as social services, jobs, and government contracts. It includes two ingredients: 1) trust-based relationships with people or organizations with access to resources and 2) knowledge of cultural capital cues that indicate that an individual is a member of a group and should be given access to those relationships. The same definition applies to both organizations and individuals. Social capital enables organizations to gain government contracts, place their program participants in jobs, and find people to serve.

People and institutions engage in two types of social capital networks: closed and bridging. Closed social capital refers to networks that include people or institutions that are similar to each other and participate in exclusive sharing relationships. It involves strong ties within subcommunities, for example, a neighborhood or ethnic group. Everyone belongs to at least one closed social capital network. It may be family, people who graduated from a certain school, or simply local community networks. People in these closed networks are familiar with one another, practice the same culture, and trust one another. Bridging social capital involves long-term trusting relationships but crosses boundaries of class, race, ethnicity, religion, or type of institution. As Portes (1998) points out, social capital can be either positive or negative. In the welfare-to-work system, social capital can both help and hinder attempts to negotiate the local social, political, and economic system in order to aid low-income people attempting to move into stable, family-supporting employment.

DATA AND METHODS

I use examples from Wisconsin and Pennsylvania to demonstrate similarities and differences across localities. I draw on several separate studies to weave together a complex, dynamic portrait of the role of various factors that influence social capital and welfare reform. An outline of the projects that serve as the basis for this book is provided in box 1.1. Discussion of methods and data is available in appendix A. The research combines eight projects conducted in Philadelphia from 1992 to 1997 and four projects in Wisconsin conducted from 1997 to 2000. Additional data on welfare policy were collected for Pennsylvania in 2001 to update earlier research.

The projects involved three cities: Philadelphia in Pennsylvania, and Milwaukee and Kenosha in Wisconsin. Philadelphia and Milwaukee are both the largest cities in their respective states and the major locations for concentrated poverty. As in many large U.S. cities, both Philadelphia and Milwaukee have become increasingly diverse over time. According to the 2000 U.S. census, Philadelphia racial breakdown is 45 percent white, 43 percent African American, 4 percent Asian, and 8 percent Latino; Milwaukee is 50 percent white, 37 percent African American, 3 percent Asian, and 12 percent Latino. Both are rust-belt cities hit hard by deindustrialization and the recession of the early 1990s. Local economies have rebounded, but much employment has shifted to surrounding suburbs, and city-centered employment provides more service-sector and high-technology-based employment than in the past.

BOX 1.1 RESEARCH PROJECTS

Pennsylvania Projects

Social Networks, Career and Training Paths for Participants in Education and Training Programs for the Disadvantaged (Social Network Study): Statistical study of 338 people enrolled in nine training programs or community college in Philadelphia conducted in late 1995 through 1996. Study participants came from a stratified sample of people in training programs that served the range of low-income individuals in the Philadelphia area.

Life Experience of Welfare Recipients: Life-history interviews of 20 individuals and participant observation of more than 100 public assistance recipients in education and training programs in Philadelphia. These data were supplemented with data from case files from the Alternative Work Experience Program from 1992 through 1997.

Community Women’s Education Project (CWEP): Anonymous Survey Analysis: statistical study of all participants (373 women) enrolled in the CWEP workstart program over five years. CWEP is an innovative adult basic education and career-preparation program for women. At the time of the study, 69 percent of the study population was on welfare and 76 percent had been on welfare at some point in their lives.

The Alternative Work Experience Program Evaluation: Evaluation of a model service learning workfare program for two-parent families on welfare, based on program statistics for 154 individuals and ethnographic observations of that program from 1993 through 1995.

Economic, Racial, and Educational Census Mapping Project: Analyzes census maps of Philadelphia and the Philadelphia region (SMSA) on race, Hispanic origin, income, poverty, education levels, rates of employment and unemployment, types of employment, housing, welfare use, and travel to work.

Survey of Training Providers in Philadelphia: Survey of 29 training programs in Philadelphia conducted 1992–1999.

The Education and Training System in Philadelphia: Ethnographic study of organizations and government agencies involved in training in Philadelphia examining Philadelphia PIC, Commonwealth and federal documents on training and welfare reform, as well as my notes on working with training programs. Research was conducted between 1992 and 1997.

The Rapid Attachment Study: Analysis of an administrative database for a short-term job-readiness and job-placement program in Philadelphia. The database includes demographic information; government program utilization; information on substance abuse and criminal history; work and training history; interviewer assessments of presentation, attitude, dress, and interviewing techniques; TABE math and reading scores; and job-placement information for 718 people who participated in this program from February 1996 to February 1997.

Wisconsin Projects

Kenosha Conversation Project: Community needs assessment on welfare reform in Kenosha. Research consisted of focus groups with stakeholders involved in welfare reform (program participants; Kenosha County Job Center (KCJC) and Department of Human Services administrators, program managers, and line staff; social service agency staff; employers; government officials; church representatives; and concerned advocacy organizations, combined with interviews with key people involved in welfare reform and participant observation in KCJC and one advocacy organization. Research conducted in 1997–1998.

Neighborhood Settlement House Evaluation Study: Evaluation of the effects of changing welfare and child-welfare policy on a Milwaukee community-based organization, its neighborhood, and its participants. Multimethod team study: 1) ethnography of the organization and its partner agencies, 2) depth-interview study of community families (forty-eight families), 3) community resource analysis through statistical mapping of the neighborhood, windshield survey of community organizations, and interviews with selected organizations and churches, and 4) analysis of agency administrative databases and correlation of those data with available demographic resources on the community. Research conducted in 1998–1999.

Kenosha Social Capital Study: Study of the Latino and African American subcommunities of Kenosha focusing on the dynamic between Latino and African American community-based organizations and churches, community residents, employers, and the citywide community organization and church context. This multimethod team study consisted of four components: 1) ethnography in key organizations and churches serving these communities, 2) life-history interviews with twenty-six families (fifteen Latino, eleven African American) regarding social resources, work, education, and involvement in organizations and churches, 3) interviews with key actors in Kenosha and the African American and Latino communities, and 4) survey of employment practices of Kenosha employers. Research conducted in 1998–1999.

Milwaukee Interfaith Welfare Project: Research with Milwaukee Interfaith in 1997–2002:1) one and one-half years of participant observation of the agency and its advocacy programs, 2) analysis of written material from the agency on these efforts, and 3) interviews with key staff in addition to participant observation notes.

Kenosha is a small city located on the border between Illinois and Wisconsin with a population of 90,352 (2000 census). Kenosha also was a rust-belt city dominated by one employer until the mid-1980s. Unlike Philadelphia and Milwaukee, Kenosha quickly shifted to a mixed economy and had a thriving job market in the late 1990s. Like many smaller U.S. communities, Kenosha is predominantly white. According to the U.S. census, population figures are 84 percent white, 8 percent African American, 1 percent Asian, and 10 percent Latino. Kenosha was also one of the models for one-stop-shop, employment-focused welfare reform envisioned in the 1996 welfare-reform legislation.

This book departs from most studies of poverty and related issues by looking at communities as a whole, instead of focusing exclusively on the populations that use government programs or the agencies that offer welfare-related services. Discussion of families ranges from persistently poor families to those who have moved into the professional middle class. Although most of the book focuses on organizations that serve the poor, these agencies are placed within the wider context of all organizations providing certain services in a locality. Research in faith communities includes institutions serving people from several race and class backgrounds.

The research used ethnography, the methodology of anthropology. Ethnography looks at a problem like poverty holistically, exploring the dynamics within a system that affect the implementation and outcomes of social welfare policy. Research of this type relies on multiple methods: 1) participant observation—the regular observation and recording of events in a setting over time, 2) qualitative interviews, 3) analysis of secondary source materials such as government documents, agency reports, and media, 4) analysis of government data sets like the U.S. Census, Department of Labor statistics, and welfare-department statistics, and 5) survey research on particular populations.

Qualitative research and analysis of secondary source material were combined with statistical studies to develop a comprehensive picture of the social welfare policy process and the role of social capital in welfare reform. Ethnography provided two kinds of data: 1) micro-level data on changing behavior patterns and ideology of program participants, agencies, and government through participant observation and life-history interviews of a smaller population and 2) macro-level data on government policy implementation, local labor-market conditions, and segregation. The ethnographic data explained patterns found through quantitative analysis on larger samples (macroanalysis). I further linked micro to macro by situating patterns of experience in sample populations within two contexts: 1) demographic data on segregation, gender, and poverty available through public-use data sets such as the U.S. Census and Department of Labor and Department of Public Welfare (DPW) statistics and 2) local and national academic and policy literature on these topics.

My strategy of approaching social welfare policy from a community-wide perspective comes from three observations. First, as other researchers have noted (Stack 1974, 1996;Newman 1999), many impoverished people are part of family systems that include people with a full range of economic and education backgrounds. This is particularly common since the downsizing of government starting in the 1980s and deindustrialization that accelerated after 1970. Tracking the interplay among family members with different resources provides a much fuller and more nuanced understanding of poverty than concentrating only on welfare-dependent or low-income households. Second, comparing the experience of families who end up in different economic circumstances despite similar beginnings shows how various factors such as skill, work experience, education, and social capital influence long-term outcomes. Finally, through research on local institutions and communities, these projects found much interaction among people from different economic backgrounds in churches and local organizations. These interactions involved not only formal helping activities but also informal support and friendship. Understanding this circle of care is important in appreciating individual life paths.

The same pattern held true for nonprofit organizations and faith communities. Organizations with a particular purpose were linked to one another through associations and other mechanisms regardless of the segment of the populations they served. Faith communities were linked to nonprofits and government in many ways. Understanding the role and capacity of faith communities as socializing entities, sources of social capital, and providers of social welfare services involved placing these institutions within a wider community context.

DEFINING SOCIAL CAPITAL

Social capital evolved as an extension of economists’ understanding of human capital: education and skills people have to offer in the labor market. Social capital, most generally, refers to social relationships based on trust that have value or can be used productively. Although the wording of the major definitions of social capital is similar, various scholars conceptualize social capital differently. Robert Putnam and his followers see social capital as a generalized civic good whereas other social scientists define social capital as a structural variable influencing access to social resources (Foley and Edwards 1999).

Putnam defines social capital as: the features of social organizations such as networks, norms and social trust that facilitate the coordination and cooperation for mutual benefit (1995:67). Social capital is fostered by face-to-face interaction in voluntary organizations such as bowling leagues. He suggests that societies with strong social capital based on civic culture thrive (Putnam 1993), while countries such as the United States that lack this social capital ethos are at risk (Putnam 2000).³ Putnam sees weak social capital as influencing all spheres of U.S. society: Just as a screwdriver (physical capital) or a college education (human capital) can increase productivity (both individual and collective), so too social contacts affect the productivity of organizations and groups (Putnam 2000:29).

This definition of social capital objectifies the concept into participation in activities that foster a sense of shared community. Social capital becomes a commodity like the skills set of human capital that can be acquired through networking or community involvement. Following the attention in policy circles given to Robert Putnam’s (1995) work, the term was transformed into a metaphor for civic participation.⁴

Numerous scholars have protested Putnam’s assertions regarding the civic health of the United States (Rich 1999;Portes 1998;Ammerman 1997). People in the United States participate in many forms of joint activity. More important, the homogeneous communities envisioned as the recent past in this country never existed (Lynd and Lynd 1929). Putnam’s definition of social capital ignores the conflictual and unequal aspects of a society divided by class and race (Portes 1998;Foley and Edwards 1997). The body politic cannot draw on social capital to develop a cohesive society precisely because social capital involves defining boundaries among small groups against others outside of their social networks. Various subgroups within this society are very effective at mobilizing social capital in support of their own needs (Portney and Berry 1997;Wood 2002). In most cases, social capital functions as a mechanism to exclude outsiders lacking connections from jobs and other social resources (Waldinger 1995;Stepick et al. 1997). Although Putnam’s (2000:350–361) work recognizes that bonding social capital exacerbates race, class, and gender divisions, his solution is to call for increased civic participation (2000:402–414), particularly creating bridging social capital through participation in diverse forums (Putnam and Feldstein 2003). As discussed in later chapters, contact among people from disparate groups does not automatically lead to trust-based relationships.

In contrast, structural definitions of social capital highlight the existence of closed small groups within a larger society. In the sociological tradition, two distinct definitions of social capital exist based on the writings of Coleman (1988) and Bourdieu (1986;Bourdieu and Wacquant 1992). Both definitions recognize that social capital is a process that facilitates access to economic capital and enables individuals to acquire and use human capital.⁵

Coleman (Coleman 1988:s98) seeks to draw together the work of sociologists and economists, defining social capital by its function: a variety of different entities … that facilitate certain actions of actors—whether persons or corporate actors—within the structure. Like other forms of capital, social capital is productive, making possible the achievement of certain ends that in its absence would not be possible … Unlike other forms of capital, social capital inheres in the structure of relations between actors and among actors. Coleman portrays social capital as instrumental relations that come from face-to-face interactions. Applications of Coleman’s model also focus on face-to-face relationships (for example, Teachman et al. 1997).

Bourdieu is far less instrumental—based in the poststructuralist social science milieu of Levi-Strauss, Marx, and Weber, he attempts to comprehend the totality of capitalist societies. Bourdieu (1984, 1986) examines the complex conjunction of factors that reproduce existing social inequalities. For him, social capital is one of three fundamental species of capital—economic, cultural, and social—and a process variable linked to cultural and economic capital: Social capital is the sum of the resources, actual or virtual, that accrue to an individual or a group by virtue of possessing a durable network of more or less institutionalized relationships of mutual acquaintance and recognition (Bourdieu and Wacquant 1992:119). In Bourdieu’s formulation, each class faction reproduces its way of life and position by maintaining closed networks of people who share the same cultural habits and economic resources. Newcomers are kept out because they do not possess the constellation of social relations, even though they may acquire the wealth and cultural traits of a given status.

The definition used by Portes (1998;Portes and Sensennbrenner 1993:1325) draws on both Bourdieu and Coleman, stressing that social capital depends on enforceable trust. Social capital is redefined as: those expectations for action within a collectivity that affect the economic goals and goal seeking behavior of its members, even if these expectations are not oriented toward the economic sphere (Portes and Sensenbrenner 1993:1323).

The definition used in this book draws on both Portes (1998;Portes and Landolt 1986) and Bourdieu (1986, 1984). I identify two interrelated types of social capital: closed and bridging. Both are equally important for individuals and organizations. Bridging social capital tries to create trusting relationships between closed social capital networks. Bridges are built through intentional and slow processes.

CLOSED AND BRIDGING SOCIAL CAPITAL

My use of bridging and closed social capital differs from the use of bonding and bridging social capital by Putnam (2000:22–23) and followers in two ways. First, although I agree with Putnam that bonding social capital involves strong ties in insular groups, I do not see bonding and bridging social capital as mutually exclusive. To the contrary, strong closed social capital networks sometimes serve as safe space in which to develop bridging skills.

Second, I agree with Putnam (2000:22–23) that bridging networks are better for linkages to external assets and for information diffusion, but I do not see bridging social capital as consisting of weak ties across groups, a perception underlying many discussions on bridging social capital but not those by Putnam himself. In fact, Putnam recognizes that bridging social capital takes time to develop (Putnam and Feldstein 2003:9). I differ from Putnam because I do not see face-to-face ties as essential for developing bridging social capital. Instead, institutional networks can serve the same function, developing bridges that extend to individuals who may not know one another but trust the common bonds created through organizational connections.

Participants in effective bridging networks develop long-term, trust-based relationships similar to those in closed networks. However, participants in bridging networks may not share the same cultural or economic capital. To successfully bridge differences among closed social capital networks, they need to either develop tolerance for varying views or share culture based on other criteria. Common ground could come from shared attributes, for example, professional experience or generalized shared religious values. Bridging culture can also be a new creation of the group. For example, the civil rights movement developed new ways of working together and approaches to social inequality.

Social capital can serve as either barrier or bridge in complex society. Classic anthropological studies of the poor illustrate instrumental strategies of resource sharing through social capital that allow people to survive despite social exclusion (Stack 1974;Susser 1982). More recently, Stack (1996) showed how African Americans who developed social capital and knowledge of government-agency cultural patterns through employment in the northern United States use this new bridging social capital, combined with long-established networks in the South, to provide government-funded resources to poor African American families in their southern home communities. To succeed, welfare reform must bridge exclusionary boundaries as in Stack’s (1996) case study. Understanding the processes involved in creating bridges necessitates returning to structural definitions of social capital.

Both Putnam and Coleman ignore the power issues central to social capital. In contrast, Bourdieu sees social capital as a mechanism to maintain existing power structures. As Wacquant (1998) shows, unequal power relations are fundamental to continued poverty. Applying social capital involves first understanding the power relations inherent in the concept. Successfully altering individual career paths and changing social welfare policy involves paying attention to the power structures inherent in existing social and cultural capital. Understanding the process of power is essential to modifying current conditions. Creating bridges and breaking down boundaries ultimately results in formation of new social and cultural capital.

TRUST

The structural definition of social capital used here depends on context-specific trust. Members of a social capital network know that others will share resources because of trust-based relationships holding together the entire network. Resource sharing involves delayed reciprocity based on long-term relationships (Mauss 1954). For example, Chyrstal may provide groceries to her friend Jaysa. The favor would be returned several months later by Jaysa’s lending Chyrstal her car. Because Chrystal and Jaysa belong to the same social capital network, they know that favors will eventually be balanced out. As in Stack’s (1974) research, network members who betray the trust-based expectations of reciprocity among group members will be eliminated from the network. Thus, long-term trust becomes essential to maintaining social capital.

Members of the network do not necessarily have relationships with all other members, but a common bond through a shared network fosters trust. For example, a reference from a college adviser to a trusted colleague at another institution leads a program to offer a scholarship to a student despite the fact that the colleague has never met the student.

This definition does not require a closed network of known individuals. Like the imagined communities of ethnic nationalism, social capital relies on reference to known networks through cultural symbols (Anderson 1983). Individuals gain access to resources through reference to a recognized individual or organization and displaying appropriate cultural behaviors, not simply through face-to-face interaction. Representing a trusted entity such as an interfaith coalition or graduating from a respected school can provide social capital similar to a reference from a known individual or services provided by one person to another.

Context-specific trust differs from the generalized trust inherent in Putnam and Fukiyama’s definitions of social capital. Putnam anticipates that engagement in common activities will lead people to trust in society as a whole. His studies of Italy (Putnam 1993) highlight generalized trust in successful communities. He harkens back to the patriotism of the Word War II era in the United States—when citizens trusted in the United States as a good society. Fukiyama describes social capital as the component of human capital that allows members of a given society to trust one another and cooperate in the formation of new groups. Again, trust is a generalized value among society members.

To the contrary, the context-specific trust of social capital comes from understanding that not everyone in society can be trusted. The college professor trusts his colleague over others because he knows that teachers often write good recommendations for students regardless of their long-term potential. Chrystal borrows Jaysa’s car because she knows it is reliable whereas the bus or taxi might not show up on time. Jaysa asks Chrystal for groceries because she knows that Chrystal will not gossip to others about her running out of food. Social capital is necessary precisely because of a lack of generalized trust.

SOCIAL CAPITAL AND COMMUNITY

Social capital is also linked to the concept of community. Although numerous definitions of community exist (Bell and Newby 1972:21–54), most scholars and practitioners assume that community means a cohesive, integrated social system (Merry 1981:15), such as a social capital network. However, instead of socially cohesive bounded units, scholars often found a multitude of social worlds (Lynd and Lynd 1929) or a series of distinct non-overlapping social networks occupying the same geographical space (Merry 1981:15). Hunter (1974:4–8) describes two dimensions of community as ecological (geographic) and normative (social interaction, social structure, and symbolic/cultural elements of community). He argues for a multidimensional understanding of community that measures spatial, sociostructural, and symbolic elements of community. In modern society, local community becomes more formalized through organizations; participation in community becomes voluntary.

Community is multiplex and voluntary. In contrast, localities—for example, a city or neighborhood—are complex, not necessarily cohesive geographic and social spaces where individuals move through contexts structured by macro-social factors (economy, race, class, gender) and micro-level settings (organizational structures, social networks) in an ever-changing process.

I define "community" as the conjunction of instances when individuals develop the common recognition of shared interest, culture, and potential for trust envisioned as the basis for social capital and mutual action. My understanding of community combines the anthropological concept of subculture with the voluntary and variable theory of symbolic ethnicity. Descriptions of symbolic and emergent ethnicity (Gans 1982;Waters 1990;Yancey et al. 1976) show that people move in and out of subcultures at will. For example, an individual may participate in an ethnic club or attend a cultural event because of his or her connection to that ethnic community but participate in other communities based on work, neighborhood, or political affiliation. Individuals may participate actively in a community at one point in their life but change communities as they age. People may also participate in many communities simultaneously.

Although social capital networks are often associated with communities, social capital is not the same as community. Communities are larger entities that include people who may have no connection to one another. Closed social capital networks develop within communities, whereas bridging social capital networks cross community boundaries. For example, the low-income African American community includes many closed social capital networks based on geography, kinship and friendship networks, church affiliations, and participation in social service organizations. People within a community are likely to share similar cultural capital that enables expanding closed social capital networks more easily than attempting to develop bridges across dissimilar communities.

LINKS BETWEEN SOCIAL AND CULTURAL CAPITAL

Recent ethnographic work in communities of color (Stack 1996;Newman 1999;Fernandez Kelly 1995) shows that social capital functions hand in hand with cultural capital to help or hinder low-income people seeking financially stable lives. Using social capital involves both access to the social resources of a small group that facilitate their ability to carry out their work and knowing the cultural habits, mores, and behaviors that indicate membership in the group. Bourdieu (1986) defines cultural capital as one of the three primary forms of capital, along with economic and social capital. The social capital networks that an individual or institution engage in depend on the cultural milieu of that society. Culture becomes cultural capital when specific elements of a culture are used to identify someone as a member of a group. Cultural capital is a commodification of a particular culture or subculture that individuals or organizations can use through social capital to access resources of that group. These cultural capital cues can be subtle social patterns or clear symbols, such as speaking a particular dialect or reference to specific political beliefs.

A number of scholars recognize the links between social and cultural capital, but some substitute cultural capital for social capital or subsume cultural capital under social capital. Coleman (1988) includes mores and norms of the group as part of social capital. Fukuyama (1995:90) uses social capital to refer to the culture of particular societies, stating that social capital depends on a prior sense of moral community, that is, an unwritten set of ethical rules or norms that serve as the basis for social trust. The same mixing of social and cultural capital occurs in the literature on welfare reform and charitable choice. For example, Sherman (1997:130) confuses social capital with a combination of human and cultural capital when she states that social capital refers to training I received from my parents, peers, schools, and church that has equipped me with some valuable life skills.

Following Bourdieu (1986) and Fernandez Kelly (1995:222), I see social and cultural capital as intertwined and linked, but not merged, phenomena. Whereas Fernandez Kelly sees cultural capital as a by-product of social capital, I view the two concepts as separate, but reproducing each other. Connections can be shared with outsiders and social cues can be learned. However, for an individual to gain entry into an existing social network, the members of that closed community must both offer connections and teach the culture of that group.

LINKS TO ECONOMIC CAPITAL

As Wacquant (1998) notes, social capital is also inextricably linked to economic capital. People in power use both individual networks and formal institutions to exacerbate race/class inequality. Social science research documents prevailing economic, social, and governmental structures that keep poor people of color and women out of good jobs and power structures that determine the distribution of goods and services in this country (Edin and Lein 1997; Stack 1974, 1996;Susser 1982;Piven and Cloward 1977;Katz 1989;Gordon 1994, 1990; Massey and Denton 1993;Gordon et al. 1982;Skocpol 1995). Success or failure of welfare reform will depend on altering existing patterns of social, cultural and economic capital to allow excluded populations access to wider social resources.

SOCIAL AND CULTURAL CAPITAL AND INDIVIDUAL CAREER HISTORIES

The remainder of this chapter uses ethnographic case material to clarify the various parts of the definition of social capital used throughout this book. Social capital involves three related elements working together: 1) network connections, 2) reciprocal, enforceable trust, and 3) practice of network-appropriate cultural cues. The constellation of these factors are acknowledged by everyone participating in the network, particularly when social capital crosses the unequal boundary of employer/employee, service provider/program participant, or policy makers/community advocates. The kinds of individuals and institutions that use social and cultural capital in welfare-reform-related efforts are outlined in table 1.1. Although the same three ingredients go into social capital in each case, the actual resources needed, expected outcomes, potential causes of failure, and ways to enhance social and cultural capital differ in each situation. I explore these relationships across these various categories of individuals and different types of formal organizations and coalitions. Because successful welfare reform involves individual, organization, and coalition networks, it is important to explore the role of social and cultural capital in each context. I begin through examples with individuals.

TABLE 1.1 SOCIAL/CULTURAL AND CAPITAL INGREDIENTS

INDIVIDUAL SOCIAL NETWORKS

The first ingredient of social capital that successfully brings welfare recipients into stable employment involves the availability of networks with connections to needed resources. Chapter 7 describes the five types of families studied: those with limited or no work experience; low-skilled workers; displaced workers/ stable working class; rising educated middle class; and migrants and refugees. Differences among these five types of families often hinged on available social capital, as illustrated by the case examples. In one example, John was a white man in his mid-40s with no high-school diploma but an established career working in factories. He had migrated to the United States as a child from Germany, entering elementary school without speaking English. He was quickly tracked into special education and as a result never received formal education. I was in special ed and can’t read, he told us. Despite these deficits in human capital, John never had trouble finding work. His family and friends found him jobs whenever he was in need. Although he had turned to welfare for support after running through his unemployment, he cheerfully told me, I’ll find a job. Three months later, a family friend helped him find work driving a truck.

John’s experience was typical of that of most of the displaced workers. People relied on known employers, finding work through established social networks. Employers, in turn, trusted the skills and work habits of these workers. Jobs lasted until companies went out of business or left town. However, social capital does not simply mean having friends and family to rely on for advice and employment referrals. Both low-skilled workers and displaced workers had plenty of friends and family to provide employment information. In many cases, however, the jobs found by low-skilled workers through social networks did not offer the stability and good wages of jobs displaced workers found though their networks. The difference stemmed from the fact that low-skilled workers, primarily people of color and women, had connections only to low-paying jobs.

Chrystal’s story illustrates how low-skilled workers’ networks led them to unstable, low-paid employment. Chrystal started working at age 10, doing odd jobs at the laundromat where her family washed their clothes. She graduated to temporary jobs cleaning suburban hotels found through a girlfriend’s cousin. She had some cousins who worked there. And they knew some openings, so that’s how I got that. When cleaning jobs ended, she found work at the neighborhood store where she shopped. All these jobs paid less than $6 an hour and did not offer health insurance. Frustrated with low-level employment, she found through a newspaper a short-term nursing-assistant training program that trained her and placed her in a home health position—still part-time, paying low wages. When we met her, she was enrolled in the welfare-to-work program through a community college. She had also decided to attend this school through social capital referrals: I had a sister-in-law who attended Community. And the talk she gave me about Community made it sound pretty appealing.

Social Capital and Reciprocal Trust If social capital simply meant networks, fostering connections to work would be easy. However, social capital equally involves reciprocal trust. Anna’s experience illustrates the way that lack of this element of social capital belies available human capital. Anna was an African American low-skilled worker who had completed an associate’s degree while working as a secretary. Her skills, attitude, and work habits were good. Before returning to college, Anna had worked on and off in sales positions. Even though she was placed in an internship where her skills were valued, that employer did not hire her because of funding problems. Anna, disappointed by that experience, told another program participant how the agency had promised a job but did not come through. She started ignoring her internship program’s phone calls about job leads, instead looking for work through friends and the newspaper. After more than a year of job hunting, she returned to a sales position in a department store. She remained in that job for several years.

Social capital involves trusting the network that provides job leads and support as much as it does the prospective employer’s recognizing an employee’s skills. Trust resides in the network as a whole, but it is activated or broken through individual actions. Trust relations with new networks, such as a social service agency, are often fragile. For example, Anna’s agency had a reputation among both employers and welfare-to-work program participants for finding good jobs. However, welfare-related agencies generally have a justifiably poor reputation in the African American community (Wacquant 1998;Kingfisher 1996). Anna decided not to use social capital offered by her sponsoring social service agency after they lost credibility when the internship agency did not hire her. The link with the new network was broken because they lacked enforceable trust in her eyes. She returned to tried-and-true social capital within her community, which kept her as a low-skill worker regardless of her training.

The Role of Cultural Cues Accessing networks and enforceable trust depend on common cultural capital associated with the network. This particularly becomes an issue for newcomers attempting to break into stable labor markets. Christine had graduated from a highly regarded clerical program with exemplary skills. Although no one in her primary social networks of family and friends could help her find secretarial work, she was confident that she could find a job. However, employer after employer turned her down. After several unsuccessful interviews, her training program checked with some of the potential employers. The interviewers initially camouflaged their concerns with such statements as she wouldn’t fit in. Eventually they told us that the problem was that she dressed in clothing too tight and too brightly colored for conservative Philadelphia workplaces, wore a great deal of gold jewelry, and spoke black English.⁶ Employers did not believe her credentials because she did not follow the cultural cues used by employees they found acceptable.

Sandy’s story shows how using appropriate cultural capital makes the difference in ability to bridge into mainstream employment. Sandy was an African American woman who came from a neighborhood similar to Christine’s and had graduated from a Philadelphia technical high school known for quality clerical training. Through school and her community, she had learned the expected attire for mainstream workplaces, the ability to switch between black and white English, and required work habits. Because she stopped working when her children were born, she did not learn word-processing skills needed for office jobs. Despite these skills deficits, she was quickly hired by an agency where she had served as an intern. Management at her agency commented that they were sure she could learn computers because she fit in and did such a good