Mapping Social Capital: A Model for Investment

1
Mapping Social Capital A Model for Investment

• Thursday 24th November 2005
• Kat Healy
• Policy, Research and Evaluation Officer
• Community Foundation for Northern Ireland

2
Background to the Research

• 1996-2000 Demonstration Programmes
• 2001 Mapping Exercise
• Communities in Transition Programme (Geographic)
• Supporting Transition Initiative (Communities of
  Interest)
• Peace II Measure 2.7
• Policy Reference Group with CIT/RCN

• Weak Community Infrastructure Policy Working
  Group
• Scoping Study on Weak Community Infrastructure
• Research into Recruitment/ Employment in Areas of
  WCI
• Social Capital Research DSD
• RIA TSRP Project

3
Policy Environment What Information?

• The level of need in the area?
• The number of voluntary community organisations
  working in the area?
• The effectiveness of such organisations?
• The level of social capital in the area?

4
A Possible Model?
Social Capital
Community Capacity
Community Capability
Evidence Driven Policy
Community Need
5
Research Model

• Four-part dataset which can be used in
  combination or as separate components
• Regularly collected statistical other data
  use of Nominal Group Technique (Treasury
  Magenta Book)
• Focus on small areas and low Cost

• Original scores collected and compiled on
  Bonding, Bridging, Linking and Overall Social
  Capital
• SC scores validated via comparison with CHS 03/04
  and Life Times Runs
• Scores also collected on Number of Organisations
  (Community Capacity) and How Able They Are
  (Community Capability)
• Super Output Area level

6
Scoring Sessions

• Nominal Group Technique
• Average of 5 scorers for each area (at least 3
  independent of CFNI or CENI
• The most scorers for Waterside area of Derry
  (21), total of thirteen hours
• Qualitative Data ? Waterside Case Study

7
Scoring Guidance

• Bonding How we trust and relate to others like
  ourselves (Intra-community relations).
• Bridging Trust and relationships between
  individuals and groups who are unlike each other
  (Inter-community relations).
• Linking The quality of relations between
  communities and decision makers (Local
  Government, Service Providers, Funders, etc).
• Overall Social Capital would you want to live
  there?

8
Scoring Social Capital

• Complete Sets of Social Capital Scores Collected
  for 12 District Council Areas Antrim, Armagh,
  Ballymena, Belfast, Carrickfergus, Coleraine,
  Derry, Larne, Magherafelt, Moyle, Newry and
  Mourne, Strabane
• Scores for 447 Super Output Areas
• Presentation derived from elaborated dataset
  (Belfast Derry) Two sets of Social Capital
  Scores 207 Super Output Areas

9
Scoring Community Capacity and Community
Capability

• Capacity Number and density of community
  organisations in an area (1none/very few,
  5many, across a range of different
  purposes/interests)
• Capability How able are they at drawing in
  resources, carrying out programmes, being
  representative and cooperating? (1not at all
  able or there are no organisations, 5very able)

10
Community Capacity and Community Capability

• Complete score sets for Ballymena, Belfast,
  Derry, Magherafelt and Strabane
• Complete score sets for 276 SOAs.

11
Highest Overall Social Capital
Randalstown 2 received the only maximum score of
5 for Overall Social Capital. Its total scores
were Bonding 5 Bridging 4 Linking
5 Overall 5
12
Highest Community Capacity All Maximum Scores
13
Highest Community Capability All Maximum Scores
14
Verification - CHS

• Bonding Social Capital (Close, Tight-Knit
  Community) Significant Differences by
• Highest Educational Qualification
• Occupation
• Car Ownership
• Religion
• Linking Social Capital (Influence Decisions
  affecting area) Significant Differences by
• Highest Educational Qualification
• Occupation
• Car Ownership
• Larger differences by Religion

15
NGT Social Capital Results

• Relative Independence of Social Capital Domains
  inverse relationship between bonding and
  bridging
• Varying (and inverse) relationships for each of
  the Social Capital Domains and
• Highest educational qualification
• Occupation
• Religion, but
• Created a segregation variable higher levels of
  residential segregation more bonding less
  bridging neutral to linking.

16
TENTATIVE CONCLUSIONS

• Assists government in developing strategic goals
  for communities, agreed with the Sector moving
  to an investment approach
• Need for greater differentiation and clarity in
  desired outputs from funding interventions
• Provides an outline model of community dynamics
• Assists transparent funding/intervention
  decisions
• Raises issues about the value of Single Identity
  support without clear goal to bridge danger of
  reinforcing segregation and impeding external
  connections
• It enables monitoring and evaluation of
  interventions

17
TENTATIVE CONCLUSIONS

• Many components of the model can be kept updated
  through already available government data-bases
• Current Noble material is significant improvement
  on earlier version more sensitive and
  comprehensive
• Noble by itself is insufficient to reflect and
  describe everything going on in communities
• Capacity, Capability and Social Capital measures
  extend our understanding of the barriers/problems
  affecting an area
• Super Output Areas are better, more easily
  comprehensible area units at community level for
  most purposes

18
TENTATIVE CONCLUSIONS

• Added value of collecting qualitative research
• User involvement in the qualitative and scoring
  process means that local communities feel
  ownership of the exercise and the results
• Indications that local community groups prefer
  this model to Noble alone

19
Questions

• How important is education and occupation in
  reinforcing Bridging and Linking implications
  for wider government action?
• What is the link between Social Capital and
  community capacity and capability?

20
Data Slides
21
How much would you agree that this area is a
close, tight knit community (CHS 03/04)?
22
How much would you agree that this area is a
close tight-knit community (CHS 03/04)?
23
How much would you agree that this area is a
close tight-knit community (CHS 03/04)?
24
How much would you agree this this area is a
close tight-knit community (CHS 03/04)?
25
Do you agree that by working together people can
influence decisions affecting the area (CHS
03/04)?
26
Do you agree that by working together people can
influence decisions affecting the area (CHS
03/04)?
27
Do you agree that by working together people can
influence decisions affecting the area (CHS
03/04)?
28
Do you agree that by working together people can
influence decisions affecting the area (CHS
03/04)?
29
Correlation Indices (Pearson) for Social Capital
Scores
30
Correlation Indices (Pearson) for Social Capital
Scores Highest Ed. Qualification
31
Correlation Indices (Pearson) for Social Capital
Scores Occupation
32
Correlation Indices (Pearson) for Social Capital
Scores Community Background
33
Bonding Social Capital Residential Segregation
(338 cases)
34
Bridging Social Capital Residential Segregation
(338 cases)
35
Linking Social Capital Residential Segregation
(338 cases)