DRAFT: THIS PIECE IS UNDER REVISION

Resource Development 

Literature Review

Assessing resource development is an important component of evaluating community change. Even if community groups have engaged in process development and community members are mobilized to participate, if they do not have enough resources or if they do not properly use the resources, they will be unable to effectively impact their community. Therefore, it is important to evaluate both community resource expansion and integration when one is interested in assessing community change. Hobbes demonstrates the importance of this issue in Beaulieu and Mulkey (1995), claiming that "the purpose of community development is to identify under-utilized resources and bring them to bear on accomplishing community goals(p281)." He posits that a major challenge for rural communities is to more effectively link the skills and abilities of their workforce with attracting and creating higher paying employment. Schools can play a major part in this challenge by making instruction more meaningful and effective, while simultaneously adding to community resources and contributing to achieving community goals. Effective community development processes should integrate these activities.

The five components of resource development include:

	Environmental capital
	Financial capital
	Non-financial capital
	Human capital
	Social capital

Environmental capital: refers to the social and organizational context in which the collaborative group exists and functions (Mattessich & Monsey, 1992). The elements of environmental capital include the following:

	The extent to which there is connectedness at all organizational levels
	A history of working together
	A supportive political climate
	Letters of commitment or interagency agreements between partner organizations and agencies
	Policies, laws, and regulations that encourage collaboration (Bergstrom et al., 1995; Mattessich & Moinsey, 1992; Melaville, Blank, & Mansey, 1993; Winer & Ray, 1994).

Mattessich and Monsey (1992) posit that with other things being equal, collaborative efforts will be more likely to succeed where cooperative action has a history or is encouraged. If a community does not have a history of working together and a new collaborative approach appears beneficial, environmental issues should be addressed prior to the start of the community work. Mattessich and Monsey (1992) also note that it is important for the community group to be viewed as a leader in the community. For community changes to occur, the communities that a community group seeks to influence must perceive that group as a legitimate leader. Therefore, early efforts should include an evaluation of the community group's leadership image and change it if necessary. Mattessich and Monsey (1992) also assert that the political and social climate in a community often serves as a positive external motivator to cooperative efforts. If the right climate does not exist, collaborating partners should consider approaches to improve the climate. Mattessich and Monsey (1992) also posit that community groups should design goals to meet political and social requirements, and the methods used to obtain those goals should be perceived as cost-effective and not in conflict with ongoing community efforts.

Typically, the collaborative group may be able to influence or affect these elements in some way, but it does not have control over them. Nonetheless, the extent to which these elements are present or can be enhanced will positively influence collaborative work among groups. For more information, see citizen development.

Financial capital refers to the monetary resources that each organization in the collaborative group contributes to the collaborative effort (Bergstrom et al., 1995). It also refers to the outside monetary resources the collaborative group secures to further their efforts (i.e., community fundraising, government and foundation grants and contracts, and other private sector resources) (Melaville at al., 1993; Smith & Siek, 1996; The Ohio Center for Action on Coalition Development, 1996).

While a certain amount of financial capital is necessary to promote and sustain a collaborative effort, too much funding can also be a barrier. According to Kaye & Wolff, 1997:46-47:

Funding can be a barrier for a number of reasons. Once a coalition gets into the business of delivering programming itself, or subcontracting out dollars for programming to other agencies, it runs the risk of moving from a collaborative organization whose sole purpose is to promote coordination and collaboration to becoming another community agency. This can create a conflict where the coalition is in competition with its own members.

When coalitions are gathered together around the lure of external funding sources, one can never be sure that the partners at the table are not there just for the dollars. This leads to great ambiguity in the start-up of these coalitions. The best one can hope for is an open discussion of what brings people to the coalition table.

When a coalition gets involved with significant funds it sometimes finds a lead agency to handle these dollars rather than just a fiscal conduit or financial manager. The lead agency may then take on roles, responsibilities, and power that place it on an unequal basis with other coalition members, this can create difficulties.

In fact, Kaye and Wolff (1997) specifically recommend that coalitions should hold off seeking resources, even for staffing, until there has been time to build relationships, define a mission and goals of the coalition, and establish a track record of small successes for the group.

Given this, financial capital is necessary for a collaborative effort, but it should be balanced with the needs of the collaborative effort so that it does not supplant and negate the efforts of the collaborative group. As Kaye and Wolff (1997:47) state: "Funding in and of itself does not guarantee success or failure, but the degree of funding and the way in which decisions about funding are made, create very different sorts of organizations."

Non-financial capital refers to the in kind resources each partner in the collaborative group contributes, or can be secured from other sources, to keep the collaborative effort going (Bergstrom et al., 1995). Elements of non-financial capital include the donation of the following (Smith & Siek, 1996; The Ohio Center for Action on Coalition Development, 1996):

	Meeting rooms
	Supplies
	Computers
	Transportation
	Public relations or promotional activities
	Equipment
	Furniture
	Printing
	Construction and renovation
	Clerical assistance

Human capital refers to the investment of people's time, expertise, and energy into the community program's effort (Bergstrom et al., 1995). The elements of human capital include the following:

	The number of paid organization or agency personnel assigned to the collaborative effort either full or part time
	Full or part time staff hired by the collaborative group
	Volunteers (Smith & Bell, 1996; Smith and Siek, 1996)
	The skills, expertise, and diversity people bring to the collaborative group
	The need to provide ongoing training of staff and other personnel in the collaborative group (Melaville et al., 1993)

A collaborative group that reflects the diversity of the community in which it operates, is more likely to be effective because it can promote ownership of its work by tapping into opportunities and overcoming barriers associated with the different groups in the community. Smith, Miller, Archer, and Hague (1996) suggest the following dimensions of diversity in organizations: age, educational background, ethnicity, family status, gender, income, military experience, geographic areas of origin, ownership of property and assets, physical and mental ability, race, sexual orientation, social class, spiritual practice, and work experience. (Indicators and measures for diversity can be found under Process Development).

Beaulieu and Mulkey (1995) discuss how investments made by people, such as education and/or on the job training, can improve one's human capital stock, which includes cognitive skills, knowledge, and experience. This improved human capital stock, in turn, enhances productivity, which should lead to higher earnings. Human Capital Theory assumes that people decide whether to invest in their human capital based on analyses of the expected costs and future returns from the investments. Human Capital Theory illustrates how human capital can benefit both the individual and the community.

Social Capital: An area related to human capital is social capital. Social capital refers to the "specific processes among people and organizations, working collaboratively in an atmosphere of trust, that lead to accomplishing a goal of mutual social benefit" (Kreuter & Lezin, 1997: 1). Elements of social capital include:

	Trust
	Civic involvement
	Social engagement
	Reciprocity

Putman (1995) posits that "social capital refers to features of social organization such as networks, norms, and social trust that facilitate coordination and cooperation for mutual benefit" (p. 67). He also asserts that life in communities with a great deal of social capital is easier than in communities with little social capital for the following reasons:

In the first place, networks of civic engagement foster study norms of generalized reciprocity and encourage the emergence of social trust. Such networks facilitate coordination and communication, amplify reputations, and thus allow dilemmas of collective action to be resolved. When economic and political negotiation is embedded in dense networks of social interaction, incentives for opportunism are reduced. At the same time, networks of civic engagement embody past success at collaboration, which can serve as a culture template for future collaboration. Finally, dense networks off interaction probably broaden the participants' sense of self, developing the "I" into the "we," or (in the language of rational-choice theorists) enhancing the participants' "taste" for collective benefits. (p.67)

Coleman asserts that social capital is defined by its function. He gives several examples of social capital, including a discussion of a mother who moves from Detroit to Jerusalem with her husband and six children. The mother moved to Jerusalem to take advantage of the social capital that would afford her children more freedom. In Jerusalem, there are norms that any adults in areas with children will monitor children, which is a norm that does not exist in the US. Therefore, by moving to Jerusalem, this mother is taking advantage of social capital not available in Detroit.

Coleman posits that social capital is created by relationships between people that promote action. Because social capital occurs in relationships, it is an intangible construct. Coleman also discusses several forms of social capital including the following:

1. Obligations, expectations, and trustworthiness of structures: this type of social capital is created when A does something for B and trusts B to reciprocate in the future, which creates a type of credit; this type of capital relies on the integrity of the social setting and the extent of obligations held (for example, if John does a favor for Mark, Mark can trust that John will return the favor when Mark needs a favor)

2. Information channels: this type of social capital occurs when social relations provide information (for example, a woman who wants to stay informed on current events but does not have the time to watch the news can ask a friend about what is going on)

3. Norms and effective sanctions: norms, or "standards" create social capital when they are effective (for example, when norms against crime allow one to walk outside of their home without feeling afraid)

As demonstrated by Beaulieu and Mulkey (1995), social capital exists in norms, social networks, and interactions. Social capital can be used to improve human capital in the field of education by improving supportive family relationships and community contexts to encourage children to stay in school. Social capital theory illustrates the importance of building a sense of community cohesion and commitment to achieving community goals.

Summary

Resource development is an important component of community change. Many communities may lack financial resources, but have large social, non-financial, programmatic, and environmental resources that can be developed. In the State Strengthening project, resources are being developed in all six of these areas and used to better meet the needs of at-risk children, youth, and families.