The Ecology of Empowerment: Predicting Participation in Community Organizations

TLDR

The community empowerment model of grassroots organizing is briefly described. The study presents an ecological framework of physical, economic, and social environmental predictors of citizen participation in grassroots community organizations. Using individual and block‑level survey and observational data from New York City, Baltimore, and Salt Lake City cross‑sectionally and one year later, and longitudinal data from one city, the authors predict residents’ participation and the long‑term viability of block associations. Findings show that crime and fear are unrelated to participation, physical, economic, and social environmental factors have mixed effects, but community‑focused social cognitions and behaviors consistently predict participation, explaining up to 28 % of individual and 52 % of block‑level variance.

Abstract

The community empowerment model of grassroots organizing is briefly described. A particular ecological framework of physical, economic, and social environmental predictors of citizen participation in grassroots community or ganizations is presented. Individual and block‐level (contextual) survey and observational data from New York City, Baltimore, and Salt Lake City were used to predict residents' participation in such organizations, cross‐sectionally and after a one‐year time lag. Longitudinal data from one city were used to predict the viability of block associations seven years later. Crime and fear were unrelated to participation. Defensible space, territoriality, and physical incivilities were sometimes negatively and sometimes positively related to participation. Income, home ownership, minority status, and residential stability were positively, but inconsistently, related to participation. Community‐focused social cognitions (organizational efficacy, civic responsibility, community attachments) and behaviors (neighboring, volunteer work through churches and other community organizations) were consistently and positively predictive of participation at both the individual and block levels. The model explained up to 28% of the variance in individual participation and up to 52% of the variance in block‐level participation. Implications for theory, research, and community organizing are discussed.