Building Community and Family Resilience: Research, Policy, and Programs [1st ed.] 9783030497989, 9783030497996

Citation preview

Emerging Issues in Family and Individual Resilience

Mike Stout Amanda W. Harrist  Editors

Building Community and Family Resilience Research, Policy, and Programs

Emerging Issues in Family and Individual Resilience

Series Editors Amanda W. Harrist Stephan M. Wilson

More information about this series at http://www.springer.com/series/13415

Mike Stout  •  Amanda W. Harrist Editors

Building Community and Family Resilience Research, Policy, and Programs

Editors Mike Stout Center for Public Life Oklahoma State University - Tulsa Tulsa, OK, USA

Amanda W. Harrist Center for Family Resilience Oklahoma State University Stillwater, OK, USA

ISSN 2366-6072     ISSN 2366-6080 (electronic) Emerging Issues in Family and Individual Resilience ISBN 978-3-030-49798-9    ISBN 978-3-030-49799-6 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-49799-6 © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors, and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland

Preface

For Emerging Issues in Individual and Family Resilience: Volume 4, we have invited scholars and practitioners to share their work as it relates to ways resilient communities can build resilient families and vice versa. Taken together, the research and programs described in this volume help to illustrate the micro-, meso-, and macro-­ level factors that contribute to the development of family and community resilience. As the science of resilience has evolved over time, there has been an increased focus on the important role that social context, or environment, plays with regard to individual and family resilience. Communities consist of an ecosystem of interrelated and overlapping individual and organizational networks, and community-level policies and programs facilitate the distribution of resources, assets, and opportunities that provide valuable assistance to families who are struggling or in crisis due to economic hardship, mental illness, or the effects of natural and human-made disasters. Scholars from several disciplines and representatives of local government and community agencies who are on the “front lines” of developing policies and programs to assist families provide valuable context for understanding the science on the ways communities provide an environment that encourages and nurtures family resilience, as well as factors that foster resilience at the community level. Each chapter in this edited volume presents research- and practice-based knowledge about community or family resilience. Chapters were written by practitioners and scholars who present a diverse set of perspectives on different facets of community and family resilience. It is our hope that the information presented in the book will facilitate the development of evidence-based resilience practices, programs, and/or policies for those working with families from at-risk communities. In Chap. 1, Dr. Karabi Bezboruah approaches the relationship between resilience and community development using the ecological framework of human development, which takes a systems approach to understanding development initiatives. First, she discusses the relevant interdisciplinary literature on community development. Second, she applies an ecological framework to understand the mutual interactions and influences among the various layers of the system. Finally, she discusses the ways structures and institutions can build resilient communities and argues that community development for resilience should be context-specific v

vi

Preface

and customized to local historical, social, and cultural conditions. She makes a compelling case that community development and resilience are most likely to be successful when development planning and processes are participatory and collaborative with continuous feedback from local residents, change champions, and community-based organizations. In Chap. 2, Dr. Ronald Beer describes three programs that illustrate how family resilience can be facilitated through community participation, and how that, in turn, can build more resilient communities. Beer argues that by addressing three basic human needs—access to adequate and nutritious food, safe and decent shelter, and basic health care—individuals and families can thrive and be resilient, even in the face of sudden or chronic adversities. He describes three programs that he has helped spear-head, each of which helps to address basic needs locally and abroad: Habitat for Humanity; Our Daily Bread; and Mozambique Development in Motion. He emphasizes the important role of community participation by individual volunteers, faith-based groups, community advisory boards, social service agencies, local businesses, and civic organizations plays in helping families meet their basic needs. His discussion emphasizes that certain attitudes and commitments are necessary underlying personal qualities needed to affect and sustain community, family, and individual resilience. The concept of family resilience raises the question of how family units adapt to external shocks like human-made and natural disasters. Research suggests that disasters are occurring with greater frequency and severity throughout the world. Natural and human-made disasters pose an ongoing threat to positive family functioning everywhere, which makes it helpful to understand the importance of community disaster resilience for research and practice concerning family well-being. In Chap. 3, the authors examine the issue of family resilience in the context of a human-made disaster. They begin by articulating what is meant by hazards and disasters and how that links to family resilience, and they stress the importance of adaptive capacity and trajectories over time. They then discuss ongoing research related to the Resilient Children Youth and Communities (RCYC) Project, a joint venture between researchers at Louisiana State University (LSU) and Columbia University’s National Center for Disaster Preparedness (NCDP) concerning family resilience in the context of the BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill. Resilient cities are able to adapt to unexpected events and changes in culture, climate, and migration. More than half of the world’s population currently live in urban areas, with the percentage of people living in urban areas predicted to grow in the future. These growing cities face ongoing threats, both human-made and natural. Historical, social, and economic inequalities make thriving during threats a challenge for cities. Natural disasters and economic pressures put stress on cities’ limited resources and test their residents resolve. Impacts of these threats can result in historical traumas that span generations. In Chap. 4, Patrick Grayshaw discusses the Rockefeller Foundation’s 100 Resilient Cities Program and provides a case study of the program as it has been implemented in Tulsa, Oklahoma. He also provides an overview and discussion of community resilience in the context of cities, as well as a description of the Resilient Cities Network.

Preface

vii

Toxic stress, chronic adversity, and trauma—particularly when experienced early in life—can have far-reaching and long-lasting negative impacts on a number of outcomes for individuals and families. Biological, cognitive, and relational adversities stemming from past traumas can contribute to additional traumatic experiences that cascade over time. Resilient individuals are able to positively adapt despite experiencing one or more adversities. Research suggests promoting resilience among adults reduces behavioral risks, but requires intervention programming that (1) increases access to social support and formal services; (2) provides treatment for childhood trauma and other risk factors; and (3) provides a diverse array of individualized intervention options including addiction treatment. The impacts of adversity and trauma can be seen in men and women; however, women may be especially vulnerable due to experiencing disproportionately higher rates of child abuse and other adverse childhood experiences (ACEs), as well as being particularly susceptible to negative physical and mental health outcomes. In Chap. 5, the authors describe the prevalence and impact of trauma and ACEs on women and outline strategies for trauma-informed programming to disrupt cascades of adversity and promote women’s resilience. In Chap. 6, Michelle Schaecher and Dr. Amanda Harrist describe how resilience is fostered in an elementary school in Payne County, Oklahoma, whose student population is exposed to multiple risk factors and has experienced high levels of trauma. As the state of Oklahoma, Payne County, and local school districts have recently become engaged and educated about ACEs and resilience, they are moving toward garnering support systems, developing programs, and enacting a new way of seeing students through a trauma-informed lens that emphasizes the importance of relationships and emotional regulation. The authors propose and illustrate a two-­ pronged approach to building resilience at both the school and child levels that emphasizes school climate and focuses on skill building among the students. Chapter 7 is a sociological exploration of the relationship between community and family resilience. In this chapter, family resilience refers to the ability of families to spring back or recover from external stressors or challenges such as racism, poverty, unemployment, homelessness, or food insecurity. Humans have lived in communities throughout history because communities help humans address key life-sustaining issues like providing adequate food, shelter, and protection better collectively than they can individually. Communities are, in short, human associations for problem-solving. In Chap. 7, Dr. John B. Harms argues that many larger social problems manifest themselves in families at the local level, and that understanding communities can help strengthen families. Drawing on social capital theory and methodology, Harms discusses how to conceptualize community so that it can address public problem-solving and promote resilient families. He describes communities as networks of associations and relationships characterized by norms of trust and reciprocity. Community networks are important because vital resources are located in them, and their structural characteristics affect people’s ability to locate and mobilize resources to solve community problems. Harms presents a number of network concepts and models to illustrate how network characteristics influence community problem-solving, and he provides a case study of food

viii

Preface

i­nsecurity in Springfield, Missouri, to show how one community has intentionally structured its networks to enhance problem-solving in the face of poverty-related stressors. Finally, this preface is being written in the midst of the COVID-19 global pandemic. We are sure to learn lessons in the coming days about the resilience of our families and communities. It is our hope that those lessons will inform public policy, programs, and best practices to support even greater resilience in the future. Tulsa, OK, USA  Mike Stout Stillwater, OK, USA   Amanda W. Harrist

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank the Department of Human Development and Family Science at Oklahoma State University (OSU) for supporting the 2018 Chautauqua on Family Resilience, the conference that brought these outstanding scholars and practitioners together to focus on what it means to be a resilient community and how communities can build resilient individuals. Several speakers—mostly CEEs and CEOs— were not able to write chapters for this volume but provided stimulating ideas and conversation that influenced all those in attendance; these included Gail Lapidus and Mimi Tarrasch from Tulsa’s Family & Children’s Services, Reggie Ivey from the Tulsa Health Department, DeVon Douglass from the Tulsa Mayor’s office, and Michael Brose from the Mental Health Association of Oklahoma. We also would like to express our gratitude to Dr. Michael Merten, Director of OSU’s Center for Family Resilience (CFR), for his ongoing support of this project, and the following graduate students who conducted the interviews that are presented as Breakout Boxes in each chapter: Machele Anderson (OSU), Madisen Busenbark (OSU), Ashley Harvey (OSU), Ethan Jones (Texas Tech University), Alexis Lamb (OSU), Meaghan Tipton (University of Arkansas), and Mackenzie Webb (OSU). Finally, we would like to acknowledge Tia Claybrook, an OSU graduate student who took care of every little detail we needed help with.

ix

Contents

1 Building and Strengthening Communities: What Works? What Doesn’t?������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������    1 Karabi Bezboruah 2 Developing Individual and Family Resilience Through Community-Based Missions: Three Examples��������������������������������������   19 Ronald Beer 3 Family Resilience Following the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill: Theory and Evidence ������������������������������������������������������������������������������   31 Tim Slack, Jaishree Beedasy, Thomas Chandler, Kathryn Sweet Keating, Jonathan Sury, and Jeremy Brooks 4 Resilient Cities: A Case Study of Tulsa, Oklahoma������������������������������   49 Patrick D. Grayshaw 5 Resilience in Women: Disrupting Cascades of Adversity with Trauma-Informed Practice ������������������������������������������������������������   69 Amanda Williams, Jennifer Becnel, Zachary Giano, Kali Weber, and Mary Wyandt-Hiebert 6 Schools as Resilient Communities Building Resilience in Children������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   93 Michelle H. Schaecher and Amanda W. Harrist 7 Community Context and Family Resilience������������������������������������������  109 John B. Harms Index������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  121

xi

About the Editors

Amanda  W.  Harrist  received her Ph.D. in Child and Family Studies from the University of Tennessee, Knoxville. She is currently a Professor of Human Development and Family Science at Oklahoma State University, where she is also Associate Director for Education and Translation at the Center for Family Resilience and an Administrative Core Director of Human and Community Research Training for the Center for Integrative Research on Childhood Adversity (CIRCA). Her research is focused on understanding psychosocial risk and protective processes in children’s social contexts, particularly the parent–child relationship and peer relations at school. Stephan  Wilson  is currently the Dean of the College of Education and Human Sciences. He is a Ph.D. graduate in Child and Family Studies from the University of Tennessee, Knoxville. He is an NCFR Fellow, Fulbright Fellow, Regents Professor at Oklahoma State University, Legend recognition of the American Association of Family and Consumer Sciences, and has numerous teaching, research, and community engagement recognitions. His areas of expertise include cross-cultural family science and adolescent social competence. Mike Stout  is the George Kaiser Family Foundation Endowed Chair in Family and Community Policy at Oklahoma State University-Tulsa. He received his Ph.D. in sociology from the Pennsylvania State University. His research is currently focused on the ways social and economic inequalities lead to barriers that restrict access to valuable resources and opportunities in communities. His research is primarily community-based, and he works with communities to develop and implement ­equitable participatory processes for understanding and addressing complex public issues. He is also director of the Community Impact Core at Center for Integrative Research on Childhood Adversity (CIRCA), an interdisciplinary research initiative, funded by the National Institutes of Health, on the mechanisms involved in the effects of childhood adversity on health and development and the development of

xiii

xiv

About the Editors

more effective and sustainable prevention and intervention strategies to interrupt the cycle of generational trauma and toxic stress. He is also co-director of the Center for Public Life at OSU-Tulsa, a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization that helps engage communities in discussions of important public issues.

Contributors

Jennifer  Becnel  School of Human Environmental Sciences, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR, USA Jaishree Beedasy  Columbia University, National Center for Disaster Preparedness, New York, NY, USA Ronald Beer  Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK, USA Karabi  Bezboruah  College of Architecture, Planning and Public Affairs, University of Texas at Arlington, Arlington, TX, USA Jeremy Brooks  Columbia University, National Center for Disaster Preparedness, New York, NY, USA Thomas  Chandler  Columbia University, Preparedness, New York, NY, USA

National

Center

for

Disaster

Zachary Giano  School of Human Environmental Sciences, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR, USA Patrick D. Grayshaw  Department of Human Development and Family Science, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK, USA John  B.  Harms  Department of Sociology and Anthropology, Missouri State University, Springfield, MO, USA Amanda  W.  Harrist  Department of Human Development and Family Science, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK, USA Kathryn  Sweet  Keating  Louisiana State University, Department of Sociology, Baton Rouge, LA, USA Michelle H. Schaecher  Will Rogers Elementary, Stillwater, OK, USA Tim  Slack  Louisiana State University, Department of Sociology, Baton Rouge, LA, USA xv

xvi

About the Editors

Jonathan Sury  Columbia University, National Center for Disaster Preparedness, New York, NY, USA Kali  Weber  School of Human Environmental Sciences, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR, USA Amanda  Williams  School of Human Environmental Sciences, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR, USA Mary  Wyandt-Hiebert  Pat Walker Health Center, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR, USA

Chapter 1

Building and Strengthening Communities: What Works? What Doesn’t? Karabi Bezboruah

Community can be defined as a group of people residing within a same geographical area or who share a common social identity such as a similar trade or occupation or profession, or membership of a group (George, Mehra, Scott, & Sriram, 2015; MacQueen et al., 2001). Others argue that communities consist of those that are tied by shared identity, values, principles, and networks with the same set of social representations such as meanings, symbols, and aspirations among the members (Campbell & Jovchelovitch, 2000). Core elements of community include locus or a sense of place, sharing a common interests or perspectives, joint action that results in a source of cohesion and identity, social ties that are the foundation for community, and diversity from social complexities within communities. We define community as a group of people with diverse characteristics and occupations but connected by some common identity or ideology or place of residence or neighborhood. Thus, we consider the family as a community sharing a common identity and can contribute to both individual and community development. Similarly, by residing in a neighborhood, the family unit can be actively engaged in developing and empowering the larger community. This definition is based on the family resilience models (e.g., Henry, Morris, & Harrist, 2015) where families are able to adapt to multiple system levels from the individual level to the family-­ ecosystem fit. Additionally, families and residents can influence the social, economic, and political fabric of their neighborhoods because of their “shared belief in [their] conjoint capabilities to organize and execute the courses of action required to produce given levels of attainment” (Bandura, 1997, p. 477). Building community is a multifaceted and multidisciplinary concept that researchers and practitioners have addressed through various techniques such as individual development, K. Bezboruah (*) College of Architecture, Planning and Public Affairs, University of Texas at Arlington, Arlington, TX, USA e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 M. Stout, A. W. Harrist (eds.), Building Community and Family Resilience, Emerging Issues in Family and Individual Resilience, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-49799-6_1

1

2

K. Bezboruah

infrastructure development, economic development, and infusion of resources to empower communities. Early research equated community development with the concept of economic growth, which for a long time and still is seen as an indicator of community well-being (Ballard & Syme, 2016; Bhattacharyya, 1995, 2004; Phillips, 2003). Later research, however, also takes into account similar characteristics such as social and civic engagement, social support, resilience, trust building, and empowerment (Bhattacharyya, 1995, 2004; Putnam, 2000; Westoby & Dowling, 2009). Zwygart, Plattet, and Spini (2018) cite previous research (Doucet & Favreau, 1992) to define community development as a set of processes of engagement used by people to collaborate with governments to improve their economic, social and cultural well-being. This definition underscored the role of cross-sector collaboration in development paradigm, and accomplishing it through certain specific steps. Further, the active engagement of families and local communities that share common interests and purpose in the development dialogue is critical to the process. Recent research comparing two communities concluded that “although emergent local issues and the perception of crisis triggered some short-term community engagement, social factors such as collective identity, a sense of community, and sense of efficacy appear to be more important for sustaining and deepening engagement” (Case & Zeglen, 2018, p. 184). The aforementioned argument provides the rationale for this chapter that the major challenge is sustaining community building and strengthening initiatives, and accomplishing the objective of community development. What works for one community may not be successful in other communities. So, the overarching aim of this chapter is to understand what works in community development strategies. Further, by applying an ecological perspective, this chapter discusses the role of families in community development. We argue that standardized strategies and procedures may not necessarily work in all cases. Contextual solutions emanating from the active engagement of grassroots level residents and families are better at addressing local issues. In order to answer this question, we review the literature on community development by focusing on the process, types, and frameworks for understanding the concept. Although various tools have been provided by researchers and practitioners, community development has several facets that by itself makes it a complex task to accomplish. In the next sections of this chapter, the various complexities and responses are discussed in an effort to examine the concept of building and strengthening communities.

1.1  Background Community building and development is a process and practice of creating community-­oriented perceptions and behaviors among individuals (Garza, Isonio, & Gallegos, 1988; Navarro, 1994). Based on extensive review of definitions, Morton and Glasgow (2011) summarized a framework consisting of four characterizations

1  Building and Strengthening Communities: What Works? What Doesn’t?

3

for understanding the concept of community development. These characterizations explain community development as first, a process for implementing change, second, a program of specified activities, third, an outcome, and finally, an ideology of action. For this framework to be successful, the engagement of community members in each stage is critical. For effective engagement, it is important for those involved in community development initiatives to understand the history, culture, and socio-economic characteristics of individual and families, their needs, and the pressing issues within the specific communities. Other important elements that can provide knowledge about the community are the local organizations and networks. Understanding the community can shed light not only on the assets and strengths of the community upon which development can be built, but also on the levels of civic and social participation by the community members. Therefore, the planning phase can provide important insights into the community that could form the basis for development strategies.

1.2  Models of Community Building Research suggests three models of community development—the top-down approach, the bottom-up approach, and the mixed approach. The top-down approach, as the name suggests, is when those in positions of power and authority initiate development processes to accomplish community wide objectives and outcomes. The policies are formulated with clear goals and limited number of actors and the implementation of the programs is delegated to agencies (Sabatier, 1986). Because of this characteristic of side-stepping the inputs and feedback of the intended beneficiaries of the development initiatives, top down development approaches are generally criticized as ineffective (Mara, 2018). The bottom-up approach, on the other hand, places importance on the feedback and perspectives of the beneficiary communities in the development initiatives (Hjern, 1982). Others echo this when they found that community initiatives are successful when there is active involvement of key stakeholders (Fawcett, Paine, Francisco, & Vliet, 1993; McGranahan & Mitlin, 2016). In the late eighties, Rothman and Tropman (1987) proposed three approaches to community development: social planning, social action, and locality development. These approaches can be used separately on in combination. Social planning is a top-down approach where experts are involved in setting goals and designing action plans. Social action is a collaboration where experts forge alliances with community organizers and activists to extend community control to marginalized populations. Finally, the locality development is a bottom-up model that focuses on empowering communities to identify local problems, and set goals with local leadership. Thus, community development is a means to bring forth positive change through the application of top-down, bottom-up, or hybrid initiatives.

4

K. Bezboruah

1.3  Success Factors to the Community Development Process Over the years, researchers examined community development theories and practices and suggested that certain characteristics are critical to the process. Paiva (1977) found that structural change, socioeconomic integration, institutional development, and renewal are important to the development of communities. Pandey (1981) examined strategies for development and found that initiatives that include distributive, participative, and human development strategies tend to enhance facilitation of development. Horton (1992) considered the importance of the historic power differences, and the influence of culture and institutions in the development process. York (1984) found that community development includes the establishment of community agencies for developing local competencies and a political action for change. Payne (1997) suggested that developing social capital, social inclusion and exclusion, and capacity building are important constructs for community building. Development scholars (Woolcock & Narayan, 2000) argued that social capital is a necessary ingredient for community development, as it bridges the gap between the needs of the community and the resources available through external groups or institutions. Green and Haines (2002) focused on networks and relationships within organizations and on communication and participation. Researchers have touted the importance of social change catalysts, who are champions in the development process. These catalysts are critical change agents and are often members of the community and assist in empowering people to take ownership of their lives (Figueroa, Kincaid, Rani, & Lewis, 2002). Bhattacharyya (2004) discussed building a deep sense of shared identity, and building capacity. Schiele, Jackson, and Fairfax (2005) included collective problem solving, self-help, and empowerment. Bezboruah’s (2013) study of community organizing found trust establishment, inclusion of mediating structures, and a participatory approach to development are critical factors in building community. Phillips and Pittman (2015) argued for the importance of communication among community members. They found that dialogue and regular communication with community members focused on shared or mutually recognized issues is essential to the community development process. Ballard and Syme (2016) tout the significance of high-quality civic engagement by youth as not only a meaningful and empowering experience to engage with their communities but also offer an opportunity to contribute to the improvement of communities. Such activities develop the individual, improve relationship within families, lead to better physical and mental health, and develop community social cohesiveness. In a recent research, Hale and Carolan (2018) study community development through the lens of cultural and symbolic values to access resources such as natural, human, financial, cultural, social, and political. They found that uneven symbolic power among groups and implementation of the cultural and symbolic values inequitably by groups within communities can have an adverse effect on resource access and utilization. As a result, Hale and Carolan (2018) argue the importance of resources needed to sustain dialog to help bridge diverse resources,

1  Building and Strengthening Communities: What Works? What Doesn’t?

5

Table 1.1  Summary of the literature on community development Scholars Paiva (1977)

Pandey (1981)

Horton (1992) York (1984)

Payne (1997)

Woolcock and Narayan (2000) Green and Haines (2002) Bhattacharyya (2004) Schiele et al. (2005)

Ledwith (2006) Bezboruah (2013)

Phillips and Pittman (2015) Ballard and Syme (2016) Hale and Carolan (2018)

Essentials of community development 1. Structural change 2. Socioeconomic integration 3. Institutional development 4. Renewal 1. Distributive strategies 2. Participative strategies 3. Human development strategies 1. Historic power differences 2. Influence of culture and institutions 1. Organization of community agencies 2. Developing of local competences 3. Political action for change 1. Developing social capital 2. Social inclusion and exclusion 3. Capacity building 1. Social capital to bridge resource gap 2. Norms and networks for collective action 1. Networks and relationships 2. Communication and participation 1. Building a deep sense of shared identity 2. Capacity building 1. Collective problem solving 2. Self-help 3. Empowerment 1. Engage critical consciousness to address power structures 1. Establishing trust 2. Inclusion of mediating structures 3. Participatory approach to development 1. Regular communication 2. Dialogue with community members 1. Civic engagement by youth 2. Collective community efficacy 1. Capital for development 2. Resources needed to address inequities, sustain dialogue and collective action

address inequities, and support community development activities. Table 1.1 summarizes previous scholarship on community development to highlight the essential needed for effective community development.

1.4  Family Context in Community Development Communities can be examined through the lens of the ecological theory of human development espoused by Bronfenbrenner (1977). The ecological theory of human development states that the individual is at the center of “a nested arrangement of

6

K. Bezboruah

structure, each contained within the next” provides the scaffolding for this discussion to explore the dynamics of community (Bronfenbrenner, 1977, p. 514). This theory applies socio-ecological perspective to understand the structures within which human development occurs. Communities are formed of families, neighborhoods, institutions, and other structures that intersect with each other in the course of its functions. Human and community development occurs in the intersection and context of these structures. These structures are family, schools, places of worship, neighborhood and so forth that connect and interact with an individual. Bronfenbrenner (1977) termed these structures microsystem, mesosystem, exosystem, and macrosystem, with the individual at the center. Figure 1.1 below is an adapted version of Bronfenbrenner’s ecological model that shows the relation of the individual and their family to the external context. This also details how all of these structures play an important role in community building. Each structure represents increasingly distal aspects of an individual’s ecological context. The microsystem is the closest to the individual and it includes the relationships and interactions that individuals have with their immediate surroundings such as family, educational institutions, and places of worship. Interactions occur between the individual and their surroundings which influence both parties. Bronfenbrenner (1977) termed these interactions bi-directional influences and they occur at all levels of the environment. The mesosystem is the next layer in the environment, which comprises of the interrelationships and interconnections between

Macrosystem

Policies Culture

Exosystem

Laws

Neighborhood

Social networks

Mesosystem School

Workplace Microsystem

Family

Peers Church

Individual

Fig. 1.1  An adapted version of Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological framework. Adapted with permission Bronfenbrenner (1977)

1  Building and Strengthening Communities: What Works? What Doesn’t?

7

the structures such as schools, houses of worship, peer group, and workplace that influence the development of the individual. Here, the individual in involved in the interactions between different microsystems such as family and educational institutions, family and peer group, family and workplace, or between family and place of worship. The next inner structure is the exosystem, which represents the formal and informal structures that impact an individual’s immediate environment. The individual may not directly interact with these structures, yet are impacted by them. Such structures include neighborhood, social networks, employment opportunities, services availability, and socio-economic status among others. Researchers (Belsky, 1980; Garbarino, 1977) argued that exposure to violence within the family environment as well in the community can have an adverse effect on children. Similarly, social isolation from neighborhood groups, social networks and extended family can also impact an individual’s development. In this structure, individuals and community members can be impacted by governmental, political, economic, and religious systems (Neal & Neal, 2013). Often, families that chose to stay in communities affected by crime and violence are limited in their mobility because of financial conditions, low income levels, employment or lack of thereof, and lack of education that hinders employment options. The macrosystem is the outermost layer of the nested structures model and represents the global and societal levels with their laws, policies, and cultural practices. Individuals residing in different communities will be impacted differently per their conditions. Another layer was added to the ecological theory (Bronfenbrenner, 1999) that adds the dimension of time is the chronosystem that captures the changes in family structures, employment status, and major societal changes such as wars. In the preceding discussion on the ecological theory, an individual is impacted most by their immediate environment consisting of family, school, peer groups, and religious places of worship. Mediating structures are institutions that are between an individual’s private life and the large institutions of public life (Berger & Neuhaus, 1977). Examples of mediating structures include schools, neighborhoods, places of worship, community organizations, and so forth. These structures have an impact on the community, household, and individual. Schools provide opportunities for interactions to occur between the child and teachers, child and peers, and family and school. Neighborhoods provide the prospect for meeting and interacting with other individuals and groups and fostering networks through building trusting and cooperative relationships (Putnam, 2000). These mediating structures, especially neighborhoods, are critical to developing and strengthening communities. Bandura (2000) touted that neighborhood change is dependent on its residents’ collective effort and effectiveness. Collins et al. (2016) cited previous research that found that collective efforts have an impact on decreased neighborhood crime and homicide rates, and reduction in neighborhood crime. Other structures such as churches or places of worship also plays a critical role in developing and fostering social connections and networks.

8

K. Bezboruah

Breakout Box 1.1 Focus on Application I have striven to link my courses (I teach child development courses and manage the birth to kindergarten licensure program at the University of Arkansas) with the local surrounding community. I focus especially on my early childhood education courses which are linked with practicum experiences. I have also engaged in community research that improves lives and enriches the experiences of young children. One such project resulted in an outdoor learning space at a local elementary school, in which a group of parents and teachers set up different learning experiences on a monthly rotation. The highest peak in this project related to Bronfenbrenner’s model was in the meso-­ system, because it involved linking the school, parents in the community, and the university. The stakeholders in the project were parents, teachers, and administrators. The issues with this project involved mis-aligned goals of that various stakeholders, which led to lack of buy-in. In particular, the teachers did not allow the students to use the space during recess, possibly due to fear of controlling their behavior. They also did not co-invest in maintaining the space. Similarly, only a small group of parents were invested in maintaining the space. This made it difficult to sustain the project. In the immediate, the children loved the new outdoor learning space. The teachers were excited but also not clear on whether/when/how to allow the children to use the space. For the first year, the space was an exciting gathering place for children and also brought together a group of parents who were invested in the space. However, it was not sustainable long-term, and after the first year, the space was no longer functional. Additional funding, long-term maintenance, and increased buy-in would be needed to sustain the initial effort made to create the space. I would be interested in attempting something similar in the future, but I would ensure that there was planning and by in from the school, rather than from the university faculty and parents. After looking at these takeaways from the project and practice, I would have to say that without the internal buy in, I would not attempt it again.” –– Laura Herold, PhD, Clinical Assistant Professor, School of Human Environmental Sciences, University of Arkansas

While working on community level development initiatives, it is imperative to understand the critical functions of the mediating structures within the ecological context. These structures provide the formal and informal safety nets for individuals and families at risk that could contribute to community development. Especially in urban settings, some of these structures are weak due to the transactional nature of interactions with high social boundaries from an absence of traditional norms even when residents live in close proximity (Pawar, 2014). With less social interactions between people, the importance for these mediating structures such as schools,

1  Building and Strengthening Communities: What Works? What Doesn’t?

9

places of worship, and workplace, where people are more likely to socialize is noteworthy. Community development initiatives can leverage social networks and participation of residents to accomplish their objectives. For example, food insecurity in children and families can be addressed through higher social capital and lesser neighborhood violence as part of community development process (Jackson, Johnson, Vaughn, & Hinton, 2019). Others (Aiyer, Zimmerman, Morrel-Samuels, & Reischl, 2015) argue that when neighborhoods are strengthened through the inclusion and influence of the mediating structures resulting in high social interactions and increased social cohesiveness between residents, communities are empowered. Additionally, social interactions and linkages to important mediating structures such as recreational, educational, faith-based, extended-family, and work-related sources were critical to improved functioning of the family environment and in building social networks through positive peer relations, which lead to self-reliance in youths (Smith, Faulk, & Sizer, 2016).

1.4.1  Discussion: Families in the Development of Communities The process of community development includes top-down, bottom-up, and mixed approaches. While top-down approaches generally involve people with authority designing and implementing policies to improve a community, there is little consultation with community members and families, limited community participation in decision making, and often undermines local capacity. The bottom-up and mixed approaches, however, provide ample opportunities for participation and collaboration for designing and implementing development initiatives. Community members are consulted at various parts of the project. Cummins et al. (2007) argued for a broader recognition of the mutually reinforcing and reciprocal relationship between people and place. Community development initiatives are more successful when reciprocity between the context and the people are acknowledged. From Bronfenbrenner’s ecological perspective, there exists bi-­ directional influences and interactions between the various layers. These interactions are often mutually reciprocal and impact not only the individual and family but also the others structures within the nested layers. However, the ability to interact with the external ecological environment also depends to a large degree on the family’s socio-economic status, cultural capital, and awareness of their influence, which results in low-income families’ reluctance to participate in institutions such as schools (Bourdieu, 1977). Thus, interactions and reciprocity of relationships with mediating structures require that families participate in these structures. Often, it is an access and awareness issue. For instance, access to healthy food in low-income neighborhoods is a combination of the following factors—insufficient funds to purchase healthy food which tend to be more expensive, lack of stores selling healthy food, availability of high paying employment opportunities, inability to receive proper education for skills required for acquiring high paying employment, and so forth. Further, lack of

10

K. Bezboruah

social networks can also limit families’ awareness of access to structures that assist in bridging the gap for resources. Putnam (2000) discussed social capital as the ability of people to build relationships based on mutual trust and norms within their immediate group and with other external groups through networking and by association. When social capital is high in communities, families are better equipped to address their needs, take advantage of the opportunities available, and become more resilient. It is also important to note that social networks can be both positive and negative. While these networks can build friendships, they can also lead to negative associations such as gang memberships. Thus, families’ economic, social, cultural, and political contexts must be acknowledged when discussing their role in the context of the environment in community development deliberations.

1.5  Implications 1.5.1  Implications for Understanding Family Resilience Community development through the lens of the ecological perspective offers important implications for understanding the role of families. First, interactions between the structures within the layers of the ecological system develops essential networks that provide access to resources especially in disadvantaged and vulnerable communities. As noted earlier, families are the structure vital for an individual’s social and behavioral growth. Families also connect with the other mediating structures such as educational institutions, peer groups, among others. Interaction with and participation in important mediating structures such as schools, recreational facilities, and places of worship have positive influences on families and leads to the development of self-reliant children (Smith et al., 2016). Research suggests that the size and quality of one’s social support network such as family, friends, and neighbors results in “the avoidance of, or reductions in, a wide variety of stress-­related physical and psychological disorders” (Perkins, Hughey, & Speer, 2002, p.  40). Active involvement in social networks and access to capital and cultural resources strengthens families, improves their well-being, and increases resiliency. Second, community development is the process of improving the living, working and environmental conditions for the well-being of the people residing in the specific area. Successful community development initiatives include the active participation of households from the planning to the implantation and evaluation stages of the process. Participation in such development activities that has the potential to make positive impact on all community members affects the participating households as well in the form of increased awareness about one’s own rights and responsibilities and higher engagement in civic duties resulting in empowerment. Another aspect is the integration of community for the creation of strong, cohesive communities that are empowered and understand their influence in policy decisions (Wakefield & Poland, 2005). The challenge, however, is to sustain community

1  Building and Strengthening Communities: What Works? What Doesn’t?

11

engagement at the grassroots level over the long term. Participation and engagement by households and community groups in social movements can lose efficacy and perish if they are not able to reproduce a “sustainable base of committed activists” (Bunnage, 2014, p. 433). Strong social networks often assist with the creation of collective identity and a sense of shared vision that sustains activism in development initiatives. Finally, strengthening communities involve understanding families’ situations in the particular context. Per Bronfenbrenner’s ecological theory, families are located in the center of the nested arrangement, and have bi-directional interactions with other structures. Through these interactions, families can access resources as well as influence policy making. Therefore, it is important to understand the context of any community building initiatives and the relationship of the families to that context. This process-person-context-time model takes into account the macrosystem to the microsystem influences to demonstrate how the larger context of laws and policies shape the various levels of the environment. Family resilience can be enhanced through a better understanding of the need and context in which it is situated, and acknowledging this can lead to stronger communities.

1.5.2  Implications for Practice and Policy This discussion on community building and development suggests that establishing relationships, networks, and trust with the community are vital to the success of community development initiatives. Further, the ecological context matters in development initiatives. Thus, researchers and practitioners need to be cognizant of establishing trust, understanding the context in which the family is situated, and practice a participatory approach where the inputs of diverse stakeholders are solicited while implementing initiatives for effecting change. There are several policy implications for building and strengthening communities such as: First, while planning community development initiatives, policymakers need to have a wholesome and comprehensive approach that integrates social, economic, and cultural issues. Often, community development strategies focus on economic development such as incentivizing companies to move in order to create job opportunities for the local people. Such approaches do not take into account the existing social and cultural values of the community, and marginal populations tend to be ignored in these initiatives. For instance, the local people may not have the skills necessary required for the jobs, or may have health issues that prevent them from gaining such employment or may not have the social support system essential to care for the very young or infirm. Understanding the needs of the community members can assist with the planning and provision of multiple ways to address community strengthening. Instead of focusing only on job creation and economic gains, a more systemic approach would address issues of education, skills training, health care, child care, affordable housing, and setting up the infrastructure for social support. In the absence of a comprehensive approach, some vulnerable community

12

K. Bezboruah

members and households will be marginalized and might need to leave the community once development implementation begins resulting in higher cost of living. Policymakers and practitioners need to cognizant of such consequences and plan development initiatives after understanding the needs of the community, and devising strategies that will benefit a majority of the households and families residing within the community. Second, it is imperative to consult and engage not only the community members and their representatives, but also the institutions that serve as the mediating structures such as schools, places of worship, informal peer groups, and community-­ based organizations. These structures provide a means for individuals and families to connect with, and collectively influence the policy making macro level institutions that formulates strategies for the well-being of the community. Inclusion of mediating structures provide for shared governance in the development initiatives. The mediating structures also represent the community members, and participation and engagement of these institutions provides legitimacy to the process. Due to the high trust levels associated with the mediating structures, forging relationships between neighborhood-based governance structures and local government result in long term viability of development projects. Third, for the success of community development projects, policy makers and practitioners need to forge alliances with community representatives, conduct focus groups of household and community members, and engage community-based organizations from program planning to implementation. Thus, the community is not only consulted prior to project development but also during the implementation phases and the corresponding evaluation of the project goals. Adoption of a participatory and collaborative approach with local stakeholders and grassroots organizations can enhance trust in the bureaucratic organizations tasked with implementation, and also lead to community ownership of the projects. Households and community members feel part of the process and take steps necessary for the successful accomplishment of the initiatives. This also leads to bridging connections with the various layers of the ecological context so that the initiatives for community betterment are not done in a vacuum, but includes the collaboration and partnerships of the structures in the nested layers as depicted by Bronfenbrenner (1977). In a later research, Bronfenbrenner (2005) integrated into his theory the concept of the chronosystem, arguing that community building should go beyond the present context and incorporate history because by doing so, practitioners will be able to acknowledge the unique history of the place and are less likely to unintentionally commit the mistakes of the past. Finally, the identification and leadership of a community change champion helps to ease the process of development. This individual, often someone from the community and trusted by everyone, works by forging connections and leveraging social networks for the benefit of the whole community. The role of the champion is critical and perception of any personal or political agenda can derail well-meaning efforts. The community champion brings the community together for discussions, consultation, needs assessment, and generating feedback that is then communicated with the external development agencies. Encouraging the participation of

1  Building and Strengthening Communities: What Works? What Doesn’t?

13

community wide discussions helps to generate ideas as well as provide opportunities to learn about the concerns of the community members, and the community champion plays a vital role in making sure that the ideas generated are included in the development planning phase. Policy makers and practitioners need work in close collaboration with the community change champions while effecting plans for building stronger communities.

1.6  Conclusion and Future Directions Community development is a continuous and on-going process that involves the active participation and buy-in from diverse stakeholders by establishing trust and a sense of solidarity. We discussed building and strengthening communities through systems thinking approach by applying Bronfenbrenner’s ecological theory. As suggested by this framework, community development projects work better when the various nested layers with the individual at the center is taken into account. The various layers and the structures within interact and influence each other and these, in turn, have an impact on the individual and their families. The nested structures such as government agencies, civil society organizations, neighborhood institutions and their interrelationships and interdependencies have an impact on the household and the individual, and must be addressed in development initiatives. Thus, it is critical for development projects to be participatory and collaborative in nature such that the needs of the community are well addressed by the development approach. Additionally, the more context-specific the development approaches are, the better their chances of sustaining community engagement and empowerment. When policy makers and practitioners understand the context of the community, its historical significances, and its social and cultural aspects, initiative can be customized to address specific needs and concerns of even the marginal population residing within the area. One strategy that is gaining support worldwide is community capacity building, where external developmental agencies work with local community-based organizations to enhance and strengthen the capacities at the individuals, households, and institutions, so that they are able to address their own needs. Researchers (Moreno, Noguchi, & Harder, 2017) examined community capacity building and ague that while there are expected differences in the process and outcomes of capacity building at different levels (individuals, households, institutions, and communities), there exist clear overlaps. Their finding that capacities develop simultaneously at different levels harkens back to the ecological theory regarding mutually reinforcing interactions and influences that occur within and between the layers of the system. While this discussion did not examine community development beyond theory, future research can empirically examine community building by conducting qualitative or mixed method research on how the ecological perspective can contribute to development discourse. Another aspect that can benefit from more empirical research is the focus on any one policy area such as health, housing, or child care,

14

K. Bezboruah

among others to understand how these policy areas are connected with the development of the other policy areas.

Questions for Thought and Discussion 1. What is community development? How would you define and connect community building and community empowerment with community development? Do you see any differences in the terminology used? Explain with examples. 2. Discuss the ecological framework presented in this chapter? How has this framework evolved over the years and why? Do you think the changes made to the framework are important? Why or why not? 3. Discuss the role of families in the ecological framework? How do families contribute to the community development process, and how does community development help in strengthening family resiliency? What other mediating structures contribute to family resiliency? 4. How does the ecological framework help in understanding community development? Are there other frameworks that might be more applicable? Conduct an online search to find how community development has been discussed by other researchers. Based on your research, discuss why frameworks are used to discuss community development. Explain with examples. 5. What motivates low-income people, people of color, youth and immigrants to participate in community development activities? What are the barriers to their participation? How is participation sustained from the beginning to the end of the process? And from year to year?

References Aiyer, S. M., Zimmerman, M. A., Morrel-Samuels, S., & Reischl, T. M. (2015). From broken windows to busy streets: A community empowerment perspective. Health Education & Behavior, 42, 137–147. https://doi.org/10.1177/1090198114558590 Ballard, P. J., & Syme, S. L. (2016). Engaging youth in communities: A framework for promoting adolescent and community health. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 70, 202–206. https://doi.org/10.1136/jech-2015-206110 Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York, NY: Worth. Bandura, A. (2000). Exercise of human agency through collective efficacy. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 9, 75–78. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8721.00064 Belsky, J. (1980). Child maltreatment: An ecological integration. American Psychologist, 35, 320–335. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.35.4.320 Berger, P. L., & Neuhaus, R. J. (1977). To empower people: The role of mediating structures in public policy. Washington, DC: American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research. Bezboruah, K.  C. (2013). Community organizing for health care: An analysis of the process. Journal of Community Practice, 21, 9–27. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705422.2013.788328

1  Building and Strengthening Communities: What Works? What Doesn’t?

15

Bhattacharyya, J. (1995). Solidarity and agency: Rethinking community development. Human Organization, 54, 60–69. https://doi.org/10.17730/humo.54.1.m459ln688536005w Bhattacharyya, J. (2004). Theorizing community development. Journal of the Community Development Society, 34, 5–34. Bourdieu, P. (1977). Outline of a theory of practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511812507 Bronfenbrenner, U. (1977). Toward an experimental ecology of human development. American Psychologist, 32, 513–531. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.32.7.513 Bronfenbrenner, U. (1999). Environments in developmental perspective: Theoretical and operational models. In S. L. Friedman & T. D. Wachs (Eds.), Measuring environment across the lifespan: Emerging methods and concepts (pp. 3–28). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association Press. https://doi.org/10.1037/10317-001 Bronfenbrenner, U. (Ed.). (2005). Making human beings human: Bioecological perspectives on human development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Bunnage, L. A. (2014). Social movement engagement over the long haul: Understanding activist retention. Sociology Compass, 8, 433–445. https://doi.org/10.1111/soc4.12141 Campbell, C., & Jovchelovitch, S. (2000). Health, community and development: Towards a social psychology of participation. Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology, 10, 255–270. https://doi.org/10.1002/10991298(200007/08)10:43.0.CO;2-M Case, R. A., & Zeglen, L. (2018). Exploring the ebbs and flows of community engagement: the pyramid of engagement and water activism in two Canadian communities. Journal of Community Practice, 26, 184–203. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705422.2018.1449044 Collins, C. R., Neal, Z. P., & Neal, J. W. (2016). Transforming social cohesion into informal social control: Deconstructing collective efficacy and the moderating role of neighborhood racial homogeneity. Journal of Urban Affairs, 39(3), 307–322. Cummins, S., et  al. (2007). Understanding and representing ‘place’ in health research: A relational approach. Social Science & Medicine, 65, 1825–1838. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. socscimed.2007.05.036 Doucet, L., & Favreau, L. (1992). The Orie Et Pratique En Organisation Communautaire. Sainte-­ Foy, FR: Presses de l’Université du Quebec. Fawcett, S. B., Paine, A. L., Francisco, V. T., & Vliet, M. (1993). Promoting health through community development. In D. S. Glenwick & L. A. Jason (Eds.), Promoting health and mental health in children, youth, and families (pp. 233–255). New York, NY: Springer. Figueroa, M., Kincaid, D., Rani, M., & Lewis, G. (2002). Communication for social change: An integrated model for measuring the process and its outcomes. New York, NY: The Rockefeller Foundation and Johns Hopkins University Center for Communication Programs. Garbarino, J. (1977). The human ecology of child maltreatment: A conceptual model for research. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 39, 721–735. https://doi.org/10.2307/350477 Garza, R. T., Isonio, S. A., & Gallegos, P. I. (1988). Community development in rural Mexico: The social psychological effects of adult education. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 18, 640–653. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.1988.tb00042.x George, A. S., Mehra, V., Scott, K., & Sriram, V. (2015). Community participation in health systems research: A systematic review assessing the state of research, the nature of interventions involved and the features of engagement with communities. PLoS One, 10, e0141091. https:// doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0141091 Green, P. G., & Haines, A. (2002). Asset building and community development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Hale, J., & Carolan, M. (2018). Framing cooperative development: The bridging role of cultural and symbolic value between human and material resources. Community Development, 49, 360–379. https://doi.org/10.1080/15575330.2018.1491614 Henry, C. S., Morris, A. S., & Harrist, A. W. (2015). Family resilience: Moving into the third wave. Family Relations, 64, 22–43. https://doi.org/10.1111/fare.12106

16

K. Bezboruah

Hjern, B. (1982). Implementation research: The link gone missing. Journal of Public Policy, 2, 301–308. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0143814X00001975 Horton, H. D. (1992). A sociological approach to black community development: Presentation of the black organizational autonomy model. Journal of the Community Development Society, 23, 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/15575339209489937 Jackson, D. B., Johnson, K. R., Vaughn, M. G., & Hinton, M. E. (2019). The role of neighborhoods in household food insufficiency: Considering interactions between physical disorder, low social capital, violence, and perceptions of danger. Social Science & Medicine, 221, 58–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2018.12.013 Ledwith, M. (2006). Community development: A critical approach. Birmingham, UK: Venture Press. MacQueen, K. M., McLellan, E., Metzger, D. S., Kegeles, S., Strauss, R. P., Scotti, R., et al. (2001). What is community? An evidence-based definition for participatory public health. American Journal of Public Health, 91, 1929–1938. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.91.12.1929 Mara, D. (2018). ‘Top-down’ planning for scalable sustainable sanitation in high-density low-income urban areas: Is it more appropriate than ‘bottom-up’ planning? Journal of Water, Sanitation and Hygiene for Development, 8, 165–175. https://doi.org/10.2166/ washdev.2018.101 McGranahan, G., & Mitlin, D. (2016). Learning from sustained success: How community-driven initiatives to improve urban sanitation can meet the challenges. World Development, 87, 307–317. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2016.06.019 Moreno, J.  M., Noguchi, L.  M., & Harder, M.  K. (2017). Understanding the process of community capacity-building: A case study of two programs in Yunnan province, China. World Development, 97, 122–137. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2017.04.005 Morton, L.  W., & Glasgow, N. (2011). Health: A new community development challenge. In J. W. Robinson & G. P. Green (Eds.), Introduction to community development: Theory, practice, and service-learning (pp. 229–244). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Navarro, J. C. (1994). Community organizations and the delivery of social services. In J. C. Navarro (Ed.), Community organizations in Latin America (pp. 1–22). Washington, DC: Inter-America Development Bank. Neal, J. W., & Neal, P. N. (2013). Nested or networked? Future directions for ecological systems theory. Social Development, 22, 722–737. https://doi.org/10.1111/sode.12018 Paiva, J. F. X. (1977). A conception of social development. Social Service Review, 51, 327–336. https://doi.org/10.1086/643500 Pandey, R.  S. (1981). Strategies for social development: An analytical approach. In J.  F. Jones & R.  S. Pandey (Eds.), Social development: Conceptual, methodological and policy issues (pp. 33–49). Delhi: Macmillan Education India. Pawar, M. (2014). Social and community development practice. New Delhi: Sage Publications India. https://doi.org/10.4135/9789351507987 Payne, M. (1997). Modern social work theory. Chicago, IL: Lyceum. Perkins, D. D., Hughey, J., & Speer, P. W. (2002). Community psychology perspectives on social capital theory and community development practice. Journal of the Community Development Society, 33, 33–52. https://doi.org/10.1080/15575330209490141 Phillips, R. (2003). Community indicators. Chicago, IL: American Planning Association. Phillips, R., & Pittman, R. (2015). An introduction to community development (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge. Putnam, R.  D. (2000). Bowling alone: America’s declining social capital. In L.  Crothers & C. Lockhart (Eds.), Culture and politics (pp. 223–234). New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan. Rothman, J., & Tropman, J. E. (1987). Models of community organizing and macro practice perspectives: Their mixing and phasing. In F. M. Cox, J. L. Erlich, J. Rothman, & J. E. Tropman (Eds.), Strategies of community organization: Macro practice (pp. 3–25). Itasca, IL: Peacock.

1  Building and Strengthening Communities: What Works? What Doesn’t?

17

Sabatier, P. (1986). Top-down and bottom-up approaches to implementation research: A critical analysis and suggested synthesis. Journal of Public Policy, 6, 21–48. https://doi.org/10.1017/ S0143814X00003846 Schiele, J. H., Jackson, M. S., & Fairfax, C. N. (2005). Maggie Lena Walker and African American community development. Affilia, 20, 21–38. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886109904272012 Smith, E. P., Faulk, M., & Sizer, M. A. (2016). Exploring the meso-system: The roles of community, family, and peers in adolescent delinquency and positive youth development. Youth & Society, 48, 318–343. https://doi.org/10.1177/0044118X13491581 Wakefield, S. E. L., & Poland, B. (2005). Family, friend or foe? Critical reflections on the relevance and role of social capital in health promotion and community development. Social Science & Medicine, 60, 2819–2832. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2004.11.012 Westoby, P., & Dowling, G. (2009). Dialogical community development with depth, solidarity and hospitality. Brisbane: Tafina Press. Woolcock, M., & Narayan, D. (2000). Social capital: Implications for development theory, research, and policy. The World Bank Research Observer, 15, 225–249. https://doi.org/10.1093/ wbro/15.2.225 York, A.  S. (1984). Towards a conceptual model of community social work. British Journal of Social Work, 14, 241–242. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.bjsw.a054957 Zwygart, M., Plattet, A., & Spini, D. (2018). “Neighborhood in solidarity”: A community development methodology that emerged throughout an action research experience. Action Research, 16, 65–81. https://doi.org/10.1177/1476750316666935

Chapter 2

Developing Individual and Family Resilience Through Community-Based Missions: Three Examples Ronald Beer

Many of the world’s people live with food insecurity and in less than decent and safe shelter in our communities. Both conditions, in the opinion of the author, are major elements contributing to: family conflict, fear for self and family safety, acts of anger frequently leading to abusive behavior against others, inadequate nutrition for healthy growth and development in body and mind, obesity, and high levels of anxiety and frustration which in turn can contribute to poor mental health. The author’s upbringing and subsequent accumulation of beliefs about life have led to the conclusion that there are three very basic needs necessary to allow every individual to live with dignity, regardless of gender, race, ethnicity, or creed: to consume adequate and nutritious food; to occupy safe and decent shelter; and to have reasonable access to basic health care. The absence of adequate access to one or more of these necessities contributes in varying degrees to dysfunctional individuals and families. When determining how I was going to spend personal time, energy, and resources beyond family and work for pay, my priorities focused on the basic necessities for anyone to live with dignity, especially two of the examples described above (i.e., food and shelter). It was first a matter of collecting information to determine the extent of people in our community who were living in sub-standard housing and without sufficient and nutritious food. Once aware, with facts in hand, it was a matter of assessing my attitude and level of commitment. The same determination was made about the community: Were there others, at least a core group, who held similar beliefs? I contend that once a community possesses knowledge about the circumstances of its members, related to the three basic needs for a respectable existence, the ATTITUDE about and towards individuals/families in need will, in large measure, determine the resilience of the community and its families. The second characteristic necessary to affect and R. Beer (*) Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK, USA © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 M. Stout, A. W. Harrist (eds.), Building Community and Family Resilience, Emerging Issues in Family and Individual Resilience, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-49799-6_2

19

20

R. Beer

s­ ustain community and family resilience is COMMITMENT. A basic core of individuals and/or agencies is required to sustain a meaningful foundation to support a community that believes in and is willing to do whatever it takes to strengthen family resilience. The author’s personal experiences in three different settings are cited to convey what caused the communities involved to become knowledgeable about the significant disparity among populations, whose basic needs were not being met; what attitude was necessary to address the scope of the concerns and the resources thought necessary to affect change; and to what extent was there long-term commitment to sustain services, resources, programs, and person-power for the long haul.

2.1  Habitat for Humanity (HfH) HfH is a non-profit, 501-c-3, Christian-based organization (see Hays, 2002) which provides simple, safe, and decent shelter to ANYONE who is residing in uninhabitable/unfit housing; who earns sufficient income to meet basic living expenses (food, transportation, some health care) and to make monthly mortgage payments normally less than similar expenses for apartment/house rental fees; who accepts responsibility to contribute time and energy to successfully complete a prescribed number of hours (in our case 350  hours) known as “sweat-equity” (a major concept implemented to create a sense of ownership and contribution to an improvement in their own welfare; see Cole, 1979); and who agrees to make timely payments on their mortgage and maintain the physical structure in reasonably good condition. The monthly mortgage payment includes coverage of property insurance and taxes. No interest is paid on the amount of money spent to construct the house or the mortgage. The organization of a Habitat affiliate normally includes the hiring of a manager/ coordinator who has professional construction experience to ensure proper construction and adherence to city codes, purchase of materials and supplies, and a labor force of volunteers. The latter comes from church groups, students who are 16 years of age and above, civic groups, retirees who want to be active in worthwhile activities, groups from local companies, businesses, university-based student organizations, and others from an amazing array of backgrounds. Generally, most volunteers want to participate in lending a hand to the less fortunate for a project that will change the recipients’ life and one that requires a reasonable level of personal responsibility (e.g., paying a mortgage at a level that is practical in a timely manner and usually spread over a 20 year period), accepting responsibility for the upkeep of the house and property, and giving time and energy to the construction of something that will be theirs. The affiliate’s organizational structure includes a “family support committee” that meets frequently at the outset and quarterly thereafter with the new occupants to provide counsel on how to maintain a house, helping the owner to acknowledge and accept responsibility for repairs (e.g., clogged drains, toilets), furnace filters changes, protecting outdoor faucets from freezing in winter,

2  Developing Individual and Family Resilience Through Community-Based Missions…

21

cutting the lawn, storing toys and other outdoor equipment in the shed that is provided for such purposes, and other requirements necessary to operate a household. Perhaps the biggest challenge, at least initially, is raising money to acquire all of the material needed to construct a house, pay for licensed professionals to install plumbing, heating and air vents, furnace and ac units, and electrical wiring. All other elements for construction can be done by volunteers under the supervision of a construction professional. Initially, money to make the purchases for construction and purchase the property on which the house is to be built was raised by appealing to local churches which acknowledged the critical need for decent housing for individuals living in less than desirable facilities. Such shelter provides: long-term assurance of a place to call home, reducing stress, anxiety, and the fear of “Where will my children live tomorrow?”; improved safety for health and security and a sense of improved comfort, stability, and ownership, especially when children are part of the family. For the latter, it provides an environment conducive to improved learning, all contributing to a stronger resilience of the family. Breakout Box 2.1. Focus on Application My title as a Court Appointed Special Advocate (CASA) comes with many responsibilities and opportunities to witness resiliency in communities and families. As a CASA volunteer, you are required to attend a crash course training that covers all varieties of abuse, neglect, and other traumatic events children could experience in their life. One of the first things I do is read through a case file that explains the abuse a child has experienced, meet with the child, and work to advocate for the best interests of the child. I oftentimes will visit with kids in their foster homes, observe visits with their natural parents, speak with other important authorities in their life, such as therapists and teachers, and every 6  months I prepare a report for the court to use in the permanency hearing. I have worked with CASA for a year and 3 months, and during that time I have worked on two open cases working with kids in the foster care system. When I work with kids, I see resiliency in their ways to continue to improve and develop despite the hard situations they have been placed in. I have seen firsthand how children can prove resilient despite their circumstances, but a lot has to do with the resources the families are able to access. For me, after my experience working with CASA, I believe everyone in the community can be resilient. CASA cases have a lot of opportunities for resiliency for many parties, including foster children and their natural parents. The goal for a child in the welfare system is permanency. Permanency that is either a return to their or adopted by a new family. It is important to realize that, despite abuse, kids can come back and live a normal life. Equally important is that natural parents can be resilient as well. If the initial reason for removal from the home is correctable, parents are often able to correct those issues and create a better place for their child to live in. I believe one of the

22

R. Beer

important things to look for in the foster care system and with CASA is breaking cycles. Allowing natural parents to break their own cycles of neglect to properly care for others is resilience, watching kids flourish in a foster care after being exposed to abuse shows resilience and supporting/funding a cause to better families and wellbeing as a community is resilience. This is one of the best parts of being a CASA. - Matthew Cecconi, CASA Volunteer, age 24.

2.2  Our Daily Bread (ODB) No one would dispute that access to food is essential to the well-being of every individual. Lack of sufficient quantity and quality can lead to very unhealthy conditions for all living within a household. Hunger can lead to stress, anger, increased susceptibility to disease, lethargy, inhibit growth, distraction from studying for students, and so on, all negative implications for resiliency of individuals and/or family. Unfortunately, data from a variety of agencies and government departments report that many families in the state of Oklahoma are food insecure. The local United Way staff reports that “If you know that you are going to eat dinner, you are more fortunate than over 19 percent of Payne County residents who don’t know when they will get their next meal” (United Way of Payne County, 2018). In Payne County, one in four children resides in a household that is classified as food insecure. Over 50% of children in the public-school system qualify for food assistance in school lunch programs. Upon discovering that Payne County had a shockingly high number of individuals experiencing food insecurity, a group of concerned citizens from various segments of the community created an informal committee to address the concern. After verifying the degree of hunger among families, a formal organization, known as Our Daily Bread, was created as a non-profit, 501-c-3 (see https://www.ourdailybreadstillwater.org), and a Board of Directors was established to address what could to be done to significantly reduce the number of individuals and families living under such conditions. Locating a facility to create a centralized community food pantry and raising funds to meet a projected budget were the immediate and most pressing challenges. With several board members making inquiry of potential facilities and most desirable location, the city of Stillwater made known the availability of a large warehouse no longer in use. Once the planned purpose of the facility was known and ODB Board of Directors committed to paying for all renovations and related expenses, the City Council agreed to rent the 11,000 sq. ft. building for $1.00/year. Significant renovations were necessary, including the removal of a free-standing, two story wooden structure, an overlay of metal on all roofs covering the three connected long-rectangular buildings and metal sheeting on all external walls, all new electrical wiring, installation of new air-conditioning and heating units, refiguring

2  Developing Individual and Family Resilience Through Community-Based Missions…

23

of some internal walls to accommodate the intake-counselor offices and waiting room, food distribution shelving, cooler/freezer units, creation of a “sorting” room near the receiving dock and warehouse for food storage, refurnishing office space for an Executive Director and floor manager, painting, and construction of highly visible uniquely created donor recognition boards. A large number of renovations were completed by an unbelievable number of volunteers, from numerous churches, civic organizations, OSU students/staff/faculty through multiple internal organizations, high school student organizations one of which selected ODB as their annual major fund-raising project and donated $170,000. and many individuals wanting to be a part of the project. This resulted in the most significant project ever undertaken in our community. A local construction company provided overall construction management at a significantly reduced fee, to manage professional vendors required to meet city codes and perform specialized tasks such as installation of electrical wiring, air-­ conditioning/heating units, some plumbing, and sheet metal work. Every vendor and supplier of material and equipment provided such at a highly discounted rate. After operating for a year, ODB was serving approximately 2500 individuals representing about 1200 households per month. Volunteers greet “guests” of the food pantry, open 4 days per week and one Saturday, to express a hearty welcome; serve as trained in-take counselors to collect applicable information (address, phone, number of individuals in the household, financial resources, available transportation); escort each guest through the shopping area, allowing each person to select the type of food product that best fits the needs of their family, the amount determined by the size of the family; facilitate bagging the groceries; and assisting the guest to transport the items to their means of transportation. Other volunteers replenish items on the selection shelves, cooler, freezer from the warehouse; clean the shopping area, sorting room, warehouse, and receiving dock areas; agree to specialized training to operate the fork lift which moves goods on pallets. Still others with a flair for gardening prepare soil, plant seeds, pull weeds, water, and pick produce grown in a small garden, initially designed and constructed by and for an Eagle Scout project. A large community garden has been planted on city-owned land contiguous to the ODB facility and is “bearing fruit”. It is anticipated that guests who receive food and household items at ODB will volunteer to assist with planting, maintaining, and harvesting the items grown. It is our intent to introduce the concept of “sweat equity” into the process, on a volunteer basis vs. a requirement, believing that participation by and assuming some degree of ownership in the project will strengthen resilience of family members, including children where appropriate. Such activity is believed to create a sense of accomplishment and self-­worth on the part of participants. While some food and household items are purchased at a larger discount from the Oklahoma City based Regional Food Bank, a significant amount is collected daily by volunteers from six grocery stores and Red Lobster restaurant, that has developed a system to meet health department requirements. The volume of fresh fruit, fresh vegetables, various meats, canned and boxed goods is astounding. Not only does this arrangement provide a broad selection of food items, especially fruits and vegetables frequently beyond the financial ability of most guests to purchase in

24

R. Beer

a store, it reduces significant amounts of excess store items placed into garbage dumpster because of the strong demand of households of sufficient means to purchase daily, fresh, pristine appearing food items, while rejecting items that are still okay for consumption but may not appear as appealing. Once the food distribution system is strongly stabilized and a one story wing contiguous to the larger facility is updated with fresh paint, new carpet, and a bathroom installed, ancillary functions will be added to help families, willing to seek assistance, work toward breaking the poverty cycle (e.g., provide cooking demonstrations in an in-house kitchen with all new equipment funded by a local Rotary Club); managing finances by learning how to balance a check book, develop and maintain a budget, develop a plan to get out of debt; how to better cope with managing “troubled” children; reducing or removing abusive behavior, including information about other community support programs to assist in coping with such problems; how to prepare for job opportunities when appropriate by assisting with interview skills, acceptable dress, preparing a work history, resume; etc. Several banks and non-profit agencies under United Way have already pledged support for such activities. It is firmly believed that such services will contribute to developing personal skills, removing barriers to enter the work market place where applicable, reducing or eliminating negative elements of their environment, all toward developing greater family resilience. The attraction to so many volunteers, in the opinion of the author who supervised the facility renovations with great assistance from the volunteer construction crew of Habitat for Humanity, was providing essential produce and services necessary for a healthier existence that would benefit a needy group of citizens, including many children, with more nutritious and greater quantity of food. Most, if not all, volunteer participants firmly believed that ODB would contribute significantly to building family resilience and, perhaps most importantly, would provide a much healthier living environment for families with children. A project of this magnitude can appear to be a daunting undertaking, but an individual or a group who adopts an attitude of something must and can be done and who makes a commitment to do something about it can make it happen. Obviously, it takes many individuals and organizations to contribute personnel, services-in-­ kind, money, material goods, and other related items to make it a reality. In the case of ODB, major monetary donations came from: the high school project = $170,000.; two non-profit foundations  =  $361,000.; Regional Food Bank  =  $250,000.; local non-profit organizations = $150,000.; and many gifts from local businesses and private citizen donors. The use of a large number of volunteers reduced the projected costs from approximately $1,115,000. to less than $850,000.

2.3  Mozambique Development in Motion (MDiM) The author is including a reference to an international project that contributed immensely to improving family resilience among families in a village in Mozambique, Africa. The description will hopefully help us to be cognizant of

2  Developing Individual and Family Resilience Through Community-Based Missions…

25

similar, perhaps even greater, needs to build family resilience in many places beyond our own communities in this country, as we have comparatively much greater access to resources to address the critical issue of family resilience. An organization, known as Mozambique Development in Motion (MDiM, see MDiM.org), was created by a small group of individuals who were part of a mission project sponsored by a church. Upon returning from a life changing experience which included working with a church-based mission in the small village of Chicuque, Mozambique, to improve education, health care, and housing, for the citizens of that village, a non-profit, 510-c-3, Christian based organization was established. MDiM was created as a separate entity from any religious based organization to expand the population from which volunteers would be recruited and to increase the likelihood of a larger audience from which to solicit donations. It likewise committed to providing any services and support to an all-inclusive population. The local so-called regional hospital had no running water but drew water from an old cistern by rope and bucket, no electricity (flashlights were used for emergency surgery after dark), women were issued Tylenol as a pain-killer when giving birth to a child and were dismissed usually after 2  days to make room for other patients. All food was prepared over a wood fire, under an open-sided tin covered roof structure and served by a family member who was camped, without cover other than that provided by the family, on a dirt area adjacent to the hospital and surrounded by a concrete wall to provide a bit of privacy and some security. Much of the housing in the village consisted of a dirt floor, reed wall, thatched roof hut without running water, electricity, heat and air conditioning openings without screens for windows, and a hanging cloth serving as the door. A house was normally comprised of two rooms, one for sleeping of all family members laying on woven-reed mats and the other to secure what sacks of maize were available, to contain what meager number of clothes possessed, and to secure their most prized possession – a metal pot and the three stones on which to set the kettle over an open fire used to prepare the normal two meals per day. Women walked daily as much as several miles or longer in search of water carried in five-gallon buckets balanced on their head back to their home, and three or 4 days per week made a similar trek in search of wood for preparing meals. They were frequently subject to abuse while walking in sparsely populated areas. They were also subjected to heavy smoke in the air, sometimes within a small hut built to protect meal preparation from inclement weather or even in their house. The primary ingredients of every meal were a mushy substance made from boiling crushed maize, stirring with a stick to a thickness until it could no longer be stirred, hopefully adding some greens/tomatoes/ beans and on occasion pieces of chicken or fish when affordable and available, rarely any beef. A significant health issue was the lack of protein in their diet, reflected in children with extended bellies and reddish hair. Unclean water contributed to frequent diarrhea from which young children died more frequently than from any other cause. Education consisted of grades one through eight with many school rooms comprised of dirt floors, reed walls, and frequently leaky tin roofs. Most of the teachers were trained in a local “teacher training institute”, where students were admitted

26

R. Beer

after completion of the tenth grade for 2 years of training and then judged to be qualified to teach at any level. Virtually all instruction was by rote, with a highly inadequate piece of slate to serve as a chalkboard. When not seated on the dirt floor, three students share a wooden bench behind a small desktop. Students basically repeat words, phrases spoken by the teacher as the learning process. The majority of rooms in the secondary school provided bench seats for three and a higher quality black board. Class sizes averaged 40 to 60+. A large number of students stopped any formal education after the eighth grade, with a similar pattern after the tenth grade. Few students completed the 12th grade and very few of those could afford or, frankly expressed much interest in, pursuing any post-secondary training. Annually, MDiM sponsored fundraisers to send a team, usually 12–18 in number, anywhere from two to 5 weeks, to work with indigenous volunteer citizens and some professional staff. A brief summary of collaborative projects included: Health Care  • Dug a well, purchased a water pump to provide internal plumbing for running water in the hospital, installed water heaters and electric operated industrial sized clothes washers and dryers. • Installed electrical connections throughout the medical complex. • Acquired computer systems and trained staff for record keeping and other medical related programs, including statistical information on infants and pre/post natal care for mothers. • Sponsored the purchase of upgraded equipment and additional medical training for staff to better support mission-sponsored physicians and nurses. • Implemented a program to distribute malaria nets for the entire family of all mothers giving birth. • Funded staff to begin an outreach program in the surrounding “bush”, focusing on AIDS prevention and treatment, personal hygiene, encourage the construction and use of latrines, supply basic pharmacy/first aid supplies, etc. Housing • Raised funds to purchase local materials and paid indigenous workers to assist us with constructing simple, safe, and decent shelters, i.e., concrete floor, concrete blocks for lower half of walls, topped by reed walls to the roof (allowing for sufficient ventilation), and tin roof, lockable doors; and, for individuals with a disability eventually brought water to their yard. • Once electricity was extended into the village, paid for the purchase of supplies and installation of electrical outlets, life changing for families with children who no longer had to refrain from any school reading or assignments after dark or by the use of candles.

2  Developing Individual and Family Resilience Through Community-Based Missions…

27

Education • Created scholarship programs for carefully selected students in the eighth, ninth, and tenth grades in an effort to entice better academic performance with the reward being financial support to complete grades 11 and 12; supported two to four students annually who completed twelfth grade to attend The Africa University in Zimbabwe, a Methodist supported institution, on a four-year full scholarship to include tuition, fees, books, a computer, room and board, and transportation for two trips home during the academic year. • Through one board member’s employment with a large computer, company significant discounts were provided for the purchase and installation of 10 computers for use in the secondary school, restricted to students for school use only and a prescribed number of hours for faculty and staff outside of classroom use. The implementation of the computer system was life changing for all involved, as many of their parents had not traveled much beyond 30 miles from their ­village, nor was there any television, and only recently the appearance of some cell phones. Once connectivity was made available through the construction of a tower in a near-by town, cell phone use spread rapidly. All of the above is presented to convey thoughts about how incredibly fortunate we are to live in a country which has comparably excellent resources and opportunities to provide educational programs, specialized training, and monetary support to address the challenges of building greater family resilience and the consequences thereof.

2.4  Conclusion Martin Seligman, in his book, Learned Optimism: How to Change Your Mind and Your Life, states, “Now after seven year of experiments, it was clear to us that the remarkable attribute of resilience in the face of defeat need not remain a mystery. It was not an inborn trait; it could be acquired. Exploring the colossal implications of that discovery is what I have worked on for the last decade and a half” (p. 30). While the content of the above descriptions is not based on formal research, my accumulation of experiences and observations, even though primarily anecdotal, lead me to the conclusions which concur with Seligman’s. I firmly believe that a community with an organization or a group of volunteers with a common purpose that possesses an ATTITUDE to acknowledge a critical concern—in this case too many families struggling with relational conflicts—and, subsequently, makes a firm to determine the nature of their difficulties and develop solutions, can make a significant contribution to increasing family resilience. Assisting a family to acquire affordable, long-term housing through a program such as Habitat for Humanity will add a great deal to a family’s resiliency. It creates an environment that is stable, safe, and decent; a place for adequate bedrooms in which to sleep with some privacy and a quiet place to study for children in school.

28

R. Beer

It removes the worry or threat of being evicted with no other place to go, circumstances which likely lead to high levels of anxiety, fear, anger, depression, etc., all contributing to family instability. Nutritious and well-balanced meals of sufficient quantity are essential to good health, growth, and development, especially for children. Providing a wide selection of food items, including fresh vegetables and fruits, a variety of meats, along with supplemental canned and boxed goods through a conveniently available location, at no cost to the consumer, increases the likelihood of better health/less sickness, removes going to school hungry for children improving their learning environment, and contributes to healthier physical growth. Obvious to all is the need for adequate quality and quantity of food for promoting strong health and development. The creation of an easily accessible food pantry, available at times and at a frequency most convenient to the patrons, and which allows personal selection of nutritious food items, will certainly contribute to greater family resilience. Finally, let us all be mindful of our great wealth of resources and available services compared to that which is available in what are normally referred to as third world countries. Sharing information and whatever amount of financial support to families in underdeveloped communities, at whatever level, can improve exponentially the lives of many families, strengthening their resiliency as a family.

Questions for Thought and Discussion 1. Why should citizens of financial means, sufficient to meet their daily basic needs for living a life with dignity, be concerned about the welfare of families in their communities who cannot afford to purchase nutritious food and/or occupy decent and safe housing? 2. Identify the most likely consequences for children (infants through adolescents) who are members of a family that cannot provide:

(a) consistent occupancy of safe and decent shelter, forced to move from place to place frequently due to a lack of financial means? (b) sufficient nutritionally-balanced meals on a daily basis and/or cannot provide any food for one or more meals?

3. Should we, who live in a country of amazing resources, express concern about and/or act upon the lack of respectable housing for millions of citizens in underdeveloped countries, conditions which dramatically and negatively affect the health and education of the overwhelming majority of children?

(a) If so, what is our moral obligation, if any, to change such conditions, and how to do so? (b) If not, what is the rationale for ignoring the plight of individuals who must live without dignity, without decent shelter, in unsafe and unhealthy conditions?

2  Developing Individual and Family Resilience Through Community-Based Missions…

29

4. In approximately 30 countries worldwide, it is required for youth to spend a year or two in non-military (or military) service to their countries (Omondi, 2017). In the US, we have Americore and Teach for America programs, but only a small proportion of youth participate.

(a) Do you think the US should consider making a year of youth service mandatory for all citizens? Why or why not? (b) What could be done to encourage voluntary youth service in the US?

References Cole, J. B. (1979). Sweat equity: A study of housing systems by and for the people in the United States and Cuba. The Black Scholar, 11, 40–56. https://doi.org/10.1080/00064246.1979.1141 4071 Hays, R.  A. (2002). Habitat for humanity: Building social capital through faith based service. Journal of Urban Affairs, 24, 247–269. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9906.00126 Omondi, S. (2017, September). Countries with mandatory military service. Atlas. https://www. worldatlas.com/articles/countries-with-mandatory-military-service.html Seligman, M. E. P. (2006). Learned optimism: How to change your mind and your life. New York, NY: Vintage. United Way of Payne County. (2018, November). Making #GivingTuesday matter. Stillwater NewsPress. https://www.stwnewspress.com/news/making-givingtuesday-matter/article_13811 bb0-ed04-11e8-a286-abe0a9fcfe1d.html

Chapter 3

Family Resilience Following the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill: Theory and Evidence Tim Slack, Jaishree Beedasy, Thomas Chandler, Kathryn Sweet Keating, Jonathan Sury, and Jeremy Brooks

Family resilience raises the question of how family units adapt to external shocks. One notable form of such shocks are disasters. Research shows that disasters are occurring with greater frequency and severity throughout the world (Brunsentev & Vroman, 2017). Natural and human-made hazards pose an ongoing threat to positive family functioning everywhere. Implied in this reality is climate change, which is resulting in increased precipitation, sea level rise, and extreme temperatures around the globe (Fischer & Knutti, 2015). Indeed, a committee convened by the National Academies did not mince words in declaring disaster resilience “a national imperative” in the United States (National Research Council, 2012). The committee stated eight reasons to support this contention (2012, p. 14): 1. Disasters will continue to occur, whether natural or human-induced, in all parts of the country; 2. The population will continue to grow and age as will the number and size of communities; in some regions, population decline and the number and size of communities will create a different set of challenges as tax bases decline; 3. Demographic data demonstrate that more people are moving to coastal and southern regions—areas with a high number of existing hazards such as droughts and hurricanes; 4. Public infrastructure is currently aging beyond acceptable design limits;

T. Slack (*) · K. S. Keating Louisiana State University, Department of Sociology, Baton Rouge, LA, USA e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected] J. Beedasy · T. Chandler · J. Sury · J. Brooks Columbia University, National Center for Disaster Preparedness, New York, NY, USA e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]. edu; [email protected] © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 M. Stout, A. W. Harrist (eds.), Building Community and Family Resilience, Emerging Issues in Family and Individual Resilience, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-49799-6_3

31

32

T. Slack et al.

5. Infrastructure such as schools, public safety, and public health that are essential to communities are facing economically difficult times as the population grows and ages; 6. Economic and social systems are becoming increasingly interdependent and thus increasingly vulnerable should a key part of the system be disrupted; 7. Risk cannot be eliminated completely, so some residual risk will continue to exist and require management; 8. Impacts of climate change and degradation of natural defenses such as coastal wetlands make the nation more vulnerable. Taken together, it becomes difficult to ignore the importance of disaster resilience for research and practice, and its implications for family functioning. In what follows, we examine the issue of family resilience in the context of disaster. We begin by articulating what is meant by hazards and disasters and how that links to family resilience. In doing so, we stress the importance of adaptive capacity and trajectories over time. We then provide an illustration of ongoing research related to the Resilient Children, Youth, and Communities (RCYC) project, a joint venture between researchers at Louisiana State University (LSU) and Columbia University’s National Center for Disaster Preparedness (NCDP) concerning family resilience in the context of the BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill (DHOS). We close the chapter by outlining considerations for research, policy, and practice.

3.1  Background 3.1.1  Family Resilience in the Context of Disaster The social scientific study of disasters has long sought to understand how hazard events upset and disorganize “the essential functions of society” (Fritz, 1961, p. 655). Hazards can be broadly understood to be situations or events that pose a potential threat to people and property. Hazards become disasters once the potential threat is actively realized. For example, a hurricane churning in ocean waters represents a hazard, that can in turn morph into a disaster depending on the scale of the impacts once the wind and water make landfall. Importantly, disasters are generally not conceptualized by social scientists to be single-point-in-time events, but as social processes that unfold over the course of time (e.g., Brunsma & Picou, 2008; Kreps, 1989; Kreps & Drabek, 1996; Quarantelli & Dynes, 1977). Accordingly, Quarentelli (2000, p. 62) frames disasters as change processes in which “the routines of collective social units are seriously disrupted and when unplanned courses of action have to be undertaken to cope with the crisis.” Families are on the front line in such contexts. Understanding how families differentially anticipate, prepare, resist, cope, and recover from disasters thus becomes a critical task for science, policy, and practice.

3  Family Resilience Following the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill: Theory and Evidence

33

Social units and systems are not uniformly able to navigate the challenges posed by disasters. Instead, families and other social groups possess sets of traits and characteristics that variably influence their adaptive capacity to cope with disaster impacts (Henry, Morris, & Harrist, 2015; Wisner, Blaikie, Cannon, & Davis, 2004). Accordingly, like disasters, resilience is also often conceptualized more as process than outcome (Masten & Monn, 2015; Norris, Stevens, Pfefferbaum, Wyche, & Pfefferbaum, 2008). In this vein, Masten and Monn (2015, p. 6) define resilience as “the capacity for adapting successfully in the context of adversity, typically inferred from evidence of successful adaptation following significant challenges or system disturbances.” This adaptive capacity is generated by different combinations of networked resources that can be called upon in the face of risk and social disruption. Drawn from work by the Consortium for Resilient Gulf Communities (Finucane et al., 2020) and Abramson et al.’s (2015) Resilience Activation Framework (RAF), Fig.  3.1 provides a framework for thinking about resilience as adaptive capacity. The first takeaway from this figure is that resilience is multisystem, multilevel, process-­oriented, and dynamic. The adapted model begins with a multisystem and multilevel context, which is centered on the family unit given the focus of this volume. The family is in turn embedded in community, a policy context, built environment, and natural environment. All of these systems are comprised of their own sets of characteristics and traits prior to the occurrence of a hazard event. Once a hazard has presented itself, there is a disturbance to the system resulting in social disruption. Social disruption is then posited to interface with a set of networked adaptive capacities that present families (and other social units) with variable assets and deficits for coping. Such capacities are networked in the sense that they are not wholly independent of one another, but are instead interrelated in important ways (i.e., they can substitute, complement, amplify, and mute each other). Here we use the “capitals” framework suggested by Abramson et al. (2015) to illustrate this idea, where in the face of a stressor a family will have differential resources in the form of different types of capital, including education and skills (human capital); job stability, security, and income (economic capital); social network ties and voluntary group memberships (social capital); and efficacy in the political system (political capital). A family’s reaction to the disturbance over time is in turn dependent upon its ability to activate resilience (i.e., draw upon assets and mitigate deficits existing in its networked resources) to influence its trajectory toward wellbeing-related outcomes

Fig. 3.1  Conceptual framework of family resilience adapted from Abramson et  al. (2015) and Finucane et al. (2020)

34

T. Slack et al.

(e.g., health, positive functioning). The advantage of conceptualizing family disaster resilience in this manner is that it frames an understanding of resilience as a process, and provides a structure for testing how differential access to social resources influence positive adaptation and coping. A better understanding of these mechanisms can serve as a guide for preventative and early intervention programs aimed at activating and sustaining resilience during disasters (Abramson et al., 2015).

3.1.2  Differential Impacts by Disaster Type Researchers and responders have traditionally classified disasters as either “natural” (i.e., an “act of God”) or “technological” (i.e., human-made). Studies have shown that in natural disaster contexts, while there is often great disruption to the social system, there is also a collective sense that no one is to blame, consensus on the legitimacy of victims and their need for aid, and general social cohesion on moving toward recovery. Technological disasters, on the other hand, have been linked to the emergence of “corrosive community,” a context in which those affected develop contested narratives around impacts, responsibility, and blame, that in turn become a source of rancor, discord, and protracted litigation. These dynamics ultimately generate more severe and chronic social and health consequences compared to natural disasters (Couch & Kroll-Smith, 1985; Gill & Picou, 1998; Marshall, 2004; Marshall, Picou, & Schlichtmann, 2004; Picou, Marshall, & Gill, 2004; Ritchie, Gill, & Farnham, 2013).1 A key element of corrosive community is the emergence of “recreancy,” which focuses on the erosion of trust in institutions. More specifically, recreancy is “the failure of experts or specialized organizations to execute properly responsibilities to the broader collectivity with which they have been implicitly or explicitly entrusted” (Freudenburg, 2000, p. 116; see also Freudenburg, 1993). In technological disasters, there is a primary responsible party to blame and hold accountable for damages, but there are also often other organizations—notably, government agencies tasked with regulation, risk mitigation, and response— that are also culpable (Gill et  al., 2014). For example, a corporation may be responsible for an industrial accident, but government entities with a responsibility for regulating that industry may be guilty of lax oversight or blameworthy for a lackluster response once a disaster process has begun to unfold (e.g., Federal Emergency Management Agency or FEMA). Oil spills represent a prime example of a technological disaster, especially those on the scale of the Exxon Valdez oil spill (EVOS) in 1989 and the DHOS in 2010.2  There is also growing recognition that many disasters can be conceptualized as “natech”—with combined natural and technological disaster elements. Picou (2011) points to the storm effects and infrastructural failures (in particular, petrochemical releases) related to Hurricane Katrina as a notable example. 2  Some reject referring to events like these as “spills”—or even to characterizing many disasters as “technological” per se—arguing that the terms minimize the scope and complexity of such disas1

3  Family Resilience Following the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill: Theory and Evidence

35

A substantial body of literature has been developed in the three decades since the EVOS documenting the emergence of corrosive community and long-lasting negative impacts on psychosocial health in communities affected by that disaster (Gill, Ritchie, & Picou, 2016). Researchers who played a central role in building the EVOS literature predicted the DHOS as a likely “rerun” (Ritchie et al., 2011), and this estimation has proven largely accurate to date. Accordingly, the DHOS has been linked to heightened social disruption, recreancy, and myriad forms of psychosocial stress (Ayer, Engel, Parker, Seelam, & Ramchand, 2019; Cope & Slack, 2017; Cope, Slack, Blanchard, & Lee, 2013, 2016; Gill et al., 2014; Lee & Blanchard, 2012; Parks, Drakeford, Cope, & Slack, 2018; Ritchie, Gill, & Long, 2018).

3.1.3  The Context of the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill On April 20, 2010, the BP-leased Deepwater Horizon oil rig exploded about 50 miles offshore of Southeast Louisiana (see Fig. 3.2). Eleven workers on the platform were killed by the blast and the subsequent sinking of the structure ruptured the seafloor wellhead, which in turn gushed crude oil into the Gulf of Mexico at a rate of 50,000 barrels a day for nearly 3 months. It is estimated that approximately 210 million gallons of oil were released into the Gulf before the wellhead was brought to a static state, surpassing the EVOS in scale, and resulting in the largest accidental marine oil spill in history (CNN, 2018; Robertson & Krauss, 2010). Like the EVOS before it, the DHOS unleashed cascading impacts on the surrounding natural environment and settlements on the coastline. Importantly, the Gulf of Mexico plays a central role in the economy and culture of the region, with particular emphasis on the seafood and energy industries (Austin et al., 2014; Henry & Bankston, 2002). The Louisiana Gulf Coast produces 26% (by weight) of continental U.S. commercial fisheries landings, and supports infrastructure supplying 90% of the nation’s outer continental shelf oil and gas (Coastal Protection and Restoration Authority, 2018). In short, the lives and livelihoods of the region’s people are very much tied to the Gulf of Mexico.

ters. For example, Perrow (1984) posited that accidents of this type were inevitable in highly complex and tightly coupled systems characterized by catastrophic risk, and that to identify the source as a mere failure of technology is misguided. See also Beck (1992).

36

T. Slack et al.

Fig. 3.2  Estimated oil spill impact in South Louisiana (RCYC project)

3.2  P  reliminary Evidence from the Resilient Children, Youth, and Communities Project In 2015, a team of researchers from LSU and the NCDP came together to examine the unfolding social and public health impacts from the DHOS 5  years after the onset of the disaster. These efforts were organized as the RCYC project and funded by the Gulf of Mexico Research Initiative (GoMRI). RCYC has the unique features of using a geographically targeted, longitudinal, and mixed methods research design. The geographic approach enables the team to examine spill-affected communities in a manner that larger population-based studies cannot (i.e., disaster impacts can be “washed out” in larger regional samples because affected areas are more localized). The longitudinal design facilitates the study of the DHOS as a disaster process, rather than a single-point-in-time event. The application of mixed methods provides the opportunity to triangulate different types of information to provide a fuller account of disaster impacts and resilience.

3  Family Resilience Following the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill: Theory and Evidence

37

RCYC leveraged previous research efforts undertaken by the NCDP. Specifically, in 2012, NCDP used a multi-stage sampling design to select communities, census blocks, and households with children to build a dataset concerning the impacts of the DHOS in Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida.3 An impact index was calculated to identify spill-affected communities. Data availability necessitated the use of zip codes as proxies for communities. Three sources of data were leveraged to create the index: (1) individual claims data from the Gulf Coast Claims Facility (zip code), (2) business claims data from the Gulf Coast Claims Facility (zip code), and (3) aggregated coastline oiling data from National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Shoreline Cleanup and Assessment Technique (latitude/longitude). Z-scores were calculated for each of the three variables by zip code and then summed to create an overall oil impact index for each community. The product was a standardized index where higher values indicated zip codes where more assistance claims were filed and/or shoreline oiling conditions were more pronounced. Zip codes were then rank-ordered using the index (see Fig.  3.2), and the top-ranked communities were then identified as the sampling frame (N = 8 in Louisiana). Within these communities, a two-stage cluster sampling design was utilized to randomly select census blocks, and within these blocks, households with children. More specifically, an average of 15 census blocks per community were randomly selected, with target enrollments set using block density of households with children. Drawing on 2010 Census data, census blocks were chosen if at least 70% of the households were occupied and if there were at least five households with children. Households were approached based on a two-armed protocol. If a block had less than 40 occupied households, every household was approached to determine eligibility. Household eligibility was determined by the presence of at least one child between the ages of 3 and 18 years old and a parent or caregiver age 18 years or older. If a block had more than 40 occupied households, then households were approached based on data purchased from InfoUSA which provided a list of addresses with children in the household. To mitigate potential biases in the purchased list, households to the left and right of a selected household were also approached. In addition, a 1:1 matching household was selected from the block based on random points generated by a geographic information system software, and, again, neighbors to the left and right of that household. Once an eligible household was recruited, the child in the home with the most recent birthday was chosen as the reference for child-focused questions (Binson, Canchola, & Catania, 2000). In 2014, NCDP returned to households in Louisiana only. Since the initial surveys conducted in 2012 were anonymous, the research team revisited the previously interviewed addresses and collected identifiable information to populate the cohort database. The RCYC team then followed up with the same group of respondents in 2016 and 2018. Tracking and tracing techniques resulted in a 74% retention rate between the first and second waves (Hill & Willis, 2001; Laurie, Smith, & Scott, 1999; Lugtig, 2014). The survey instrument covered topics such as direct and

 For a more detailed account of this work, see Abramson et al. (2013).

3

38

T. Slack et al.

i­ndirect oil spill exposure, physical and mental health status, perceptions of recovery, demographic data, and a range of characteristics theoretically linked to social vulnerability and resilience. In 2017, a subsample of survey respondents was selected to participate in focus group discussions. Respondents were selected from six communities across the region in order to capture variation in geographic impacts. Within each community people were purposively selected to achieve a mix of different experiences with health and economic impacts from the DHOS (i.e., those that did and did not report such impacts in the survey). Ultimately, the research team conducted focus groups in six different communities with a total of 46 participants. Moderators used an open-ended interview guide to lead the discussions. The sessions resulted in over 9 h of audio-recorded narrative data that was later transcribed and coded for emergent themes. This mixed method approach sought to answer three broad sets of questions: (1) What are the social and public health impacts of the DHOS; (2) What attributes of families are related to greater resilience and vulnerability to the disaster; and (3) How does all of this change over time? In what follows we present preliminary RCYC data from the 2014 and 2016 surveys (N = 484) and 2017 focus groups as an empirical illustration of the DHOS as a social disruption process unfolding over many years. Figure 3.3 shows the percentage of RCYC respondents reporting direct and indirect exposure to the DHOS by type in 2014. The data reveal that DHOS exposure was not uncommon among respondents. Nearly one-quarter (23%) reported direct physical exposure of a parent, 14% direct physical exposure of a child, and 40% parental exposure by smell. Further, over one-third (36%) reported income loss and 15% job loss attributed to the DHOS. 50% 40%

40%

36%

30% 23% 20%

15%

14%

10% 0% Physical exposure Physical exposure of parent of child

Exposure by smell

Income loss

Job loss

Fig. 3.3  Percentage reporting oil spill exposure by type, 2014 (RCYC project, N = 484)

3  Family Resilience Following the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill: Theory and Evidence

1.8

Physical exposure of parent

2.6 2.5

Physical exposure of child 2.0

Exposure by smell

3.4

2.4

Job loss 0.0

2016 1.0

2014 2.0

4.8 3.3

2.1

Income loss

39

3.0

3.5 4.0

5.0

6.0

Fig. 3.4  Odds ratio of child mental/behavioral health problems in 2014 and 2016 (yes = 1) by oil spill exposure in 2014 (yes = 1), p