COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AS A

RESPONSE TO COMMUNITY-LEVEL
ADVERSITY: ECOLOGICAL THEORY
AND RESEARCH AND STRENGTHS-
BASED POLICY
DOUGLAS D. PERKINS, BILL CRIM, PAMELA SILBERMAN,
AND BARBARA B. BROWN

In this chapter, the authors propose strengths-based community development

as a community-levelantidote to the economic,political, social, and physical envi-
ronmental challengesfacing communities. Communitydevelopment initiatives that
encompass multiple cummunity domains, build and sustain local community ca-
pacity, and bring together the public and private sectors are central to this approach.
Special importance is placed on meaningful grassroots (citizen)participation in such
community development efforts. An array of strengths-based public policies at the
local (e.g.,community land trusts),state (e.g., "smartgrowthJJ), and federal (e.g.,
community development block grants) levels are presented. This chapter illustrates
the value of recognizingand building on existing community strengths, building new

The first and fourth authors were partially supported during work on this chapter by grant no. 98IJCX0022
fiom the National Institute of Justice. Points of view are those of the authors and do not necessarily
represent the position of the U.S. Department of Justice. We thank Michael Krownaliple, Ronnie
Leadbeater, Kenneth Maton, Linda McCarter, Kenneth Reardon, Susan Saegert, and Mariano Santo
Domingo for their comments.
community strengths, strengthening larger social enwironments, and engaging in a
collaborative, participatory community change process.

Much of the variation in social, economic, environmental, and politi-

cal adversities and strengths occurs not at the individual or family level, but
at the community level. Individual problems are often rooted outside the
individual, family, or group and ultimately become community problems
(Caughy, O'Campo, & Brodsky, 1999; Wandersman & IVation, 1998). Thus,
individual change is not the key to solving community problems. Indeed,
unless community adversities are understood to be rooted more in the envi-
ronment than in individuals or families, we risk blaming the victim. This is
antithetical to a strengths orientation. Therefore, we believe that both
strengths and adversities must be examined from an ecological perspective,
which places individuals, families, and communities in context. That con-
text includes multiple systems, institutions, and environments that, interde-
pendently, both affect people and are affected by them.
This chapter takes such a view of community-level adversities and ar-
gues that to address them adequately, our theories, research, and ~olicies
must be comprehensive and systemic. We first describe four interconnected
forms of community-level adversity-economic, political, social, and physi-
cal environmental. We then describe how these adversities can be countered
with five strengths-oriented community development (CD) theories:
sustainability, empowerment, social capital, capacity building, and asset-based
CD. These strengths-based theories have guided many promising and suc-
cessful local and international C D programs, but their influence on state-
- -

and national-level C D policy making has been more rhetorical than substan-
tive. We present an ecological model of community economic, political, so-
cial, and physical environmental development with parallel, complemen-
tary, and interdependent roles for policymakers and local communities. The
chapter concludes with a review of strengths-oriented and ecological C D
policies.

FORMS OF COMMUNITY-LEVEL ADVERSITY

Economic Adversity: Neighborhood Decline

With low-wage service jobs replacing unionized manufacturing jobs and

welfare time limits expiring, economic problems may be the most pressing
adversity to consider. Poverty is also a primary cause of poor health and poor
health care, educational deficiencies, and most of the other social, environ-
mental, and political problems discussed in this chapter and throughout this
volume. One need only travel from one side of any city to the other to ob-

3 22 PERKINS ET AL
serve the clustered neighborhood-level effects of poverty. Factors triggering
neighborhood decline include Skogan's (1990) "four Ds": (a) disinvestment,
or even systematic "redlining" (the illegal refusal to make loans in poor com-
munities); (b) deindustrialization (factory closings) and the resulting decline
of wages that can support a family, tax base, schools, and services; (c) dema-
gogues (e.g., in media or real estate) whose negative portrayal of a neighbor-
hood creates a self-fulfilling prophecy as the resulting residential instability
and fear decrease community confidence, collective efficacy, and safety; and
(d) demolition and construction (e.g., of highways, redevelopment projects).
Ironically, large-scale building projects are seen by many politicians as the
cure for neighborhood decline. But they often lead to what we would call the
fifth and sixth Ds: displacement of those who can afford to leave and those
who cannot afford to stay and discouragement of those who do stay in com-
munities destroyed by cycles of decline and urban renewal.

Political Adversity: Disempowerment

Communities that are oppressed, that lack political connections and

influence, or that have significant segments of disempowered members face
political adversity. Government agencies often use community advisory boards
and public hearings to pay only lip service to grassroots participation in deci-
sion making. This sets agencies up for failure as community knowledge is
ignored, and the community is more likely to be suspicious of, and resist, the
decisions made (Perkins, 1995).
Disempowerment contributes to all other forms of adversity. For ex-
ample, the housing crisis is as political at root as it is economic or physical.
Since 1980, housing costs have risen, sharply in many areas, while real fed-
eral spending on low-income housing has fallen. Shelter is a basic need, yet
public housing for the neediest has been all but abandoned politically. The
federal HOPE-VI program is an attempt to empower moderate-income resi-
dents by rebuilding public housing projects as mixed-income developments,
including owner-occupied homes. Because it often displaces low-income resi-
dents without providing adequate units of replacement housing, however,
this may not be the best example of a strengths-based policy. Housing adver-
sities are political because renters-especially low-income ones-are diffi-
cult to organize. By contrast, homeowners participate more in their commu-
nities and are more empowered than renters, even among lower-income
residents (Perkins, Brown, & Taylor, 1996; Saegert & Winkel, 1996, 1998).
T h e political clout of homeowners may explain why they, not those in
public housing or other renters, receive 77% of all federal housing subsidies
in the form of tax deductions. Developing and maintaining an adequate
supply of safe, decent, and affordable housing is a political as well as eco-
nomic challenge.

RESPONSE T O COMMUNI7Y.LEVEL ADVERSITY 323

Social Adversity: Crime, Disorder, and Cultural Diversity

Crime is just one manifestation of social adversity, but it is of great and

consistent concern to the public. As with poverty, criminal victimization
and justice are not distributed equally. Both victim and offender rates are
significantly worse for poor, minority communities. More young African
American men are serving criminal sentences than in college, and the rate is
rising ( Palen, 1997, p. 191). There is also geographic variation in police prac-
tices, even within the same city.
Much more prevalent than serious crimes are social and physical sym-
bols of disorder. Social disorder includes "victimless" crimes (drugs, prostitu-
tion) and such noncriminals as "menacing" youths and homeless persons.
There is mounting evidence that disorder begets crime and more disorder
(Perkins, Wandersman, Rich, & Taylor, 1993; Skogan, 1990). Residents be-
come fearful and withdraw from outdoor spaces, which reduces community
cohesion, informal social control, and organizationaland commercial life. Group
conflict and actual crime may increase as the downward spiral continues.
Group conflict may also be exacerbated by cultural diversity, which is
not in itself an adversity. However, prejudice and discrimination based on
race, nationality, religion, income, age, sex, sexual orientation, or length of
residence are community problems because of the conflict they engender
and the difficulties diverse groups encounter in sharing concerns and goals
and working effectively together.

Physical Environmental Adversity: Deterioration, Disasters,

and Contamination

The physical deterioration of neighborhoods affects housing conditions

and satisfaction (Brown & Perkins, 2001), crime (Perkins et al., 1993), fear
(Perkins & Taylor, 1996), and the outmigration of residents, business, and
jobs (Skogan, 1990). Urban blight and decayed infrastructure (roads, bridges,
water and sewer systems) are fiscal time bombs for older cities and towns and
the nation (Palen, 1997). Instead of investing in established urban areas,
housing and road subsidies have favored development at the suburban fringe
(Calthorpe & Fulton, 2001).
Two other forms of community-level environmental adversity are natural
disasters and ground, water, and air contamination. There are an estimated
425,000 toxic waste sites in the United States (Rich, Edelstein, Hallman, &
Wandersman, 1995). The distribution of the problem is highly concentrated-
geographically, economically, and racially-which has led to charges of "en-
vironmental racism" (Bullard, 1994). Consequences of toxic exposure in-
clude serious health, psychological, family, and community cohesion problems
(Edelstein, 2001). Communities that are decimated by a disaster or merely

3 24 PERKINS ET AL
threatened by contamination or a large construction project may be
disempowered by the government response to it. Emergency or recovery poli-
cies and agencies often take a top-down, rather than bottom-up, approach
and concentrate on rebuilding without necessarily restoring the community
fabric.

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: COMMUNITY-LEVEL

STRENGTHS BUILDING

What Is Community Development?

All four types of adversity underscore the need for widespread commu-
nity development efforts. We define C D broadly as a process whereby gov-
ernment, nonprofit organizations, voluntary associations, or public-private
partnerships ameliorate or prevent adversities and develop strengths in a
community's economic, political, social, or physical environment. Economic
C D encourages business and job opportunities. Political C D implies effective
community improvement associations with broad and active participation.
Social CD encourages safer streets and more neighborliness. Environmental
C D improves housing conditions, city services, and recreational facilities and
helps clean up or prevent toxic or littered sites and instill residents' pride in
their home and community.
We advocate a broad-based, bottom-up, public-private approach to C D
rather than top-down public or private efforts that focus on one issue. Gov-
ernment funding, regulation, and support at all levels (federal, state, and
local), community support and participation, and an encompassing (ecologi-
cal) perspective are all necessary for C D to be effective.

Strengths-Based Principles of Community Development

Community development policies have often been paternalistic, im-

posed from above and from afar, and based on the assumption that poor com-
munities have little to offer besides cheap land and labor and social prob-
lems. But C D theory and practice worldwide have become more consistent
with the strengths orientation of the present volume. A 1995 United Na-
tions Development Program report cited four essential components of
strengths-oriented human development: productivity, equity, sustainability,
and empowerment. The last two, along with the equally strengths-oriented
concepts of social capital, capacity building, and community asset identifica-
tion and development, have become guiding principles for CD.
The concept of sustainability, popular in international development
(Ginther, Denters, & de Waart, 1995; Rao, 2000), is also relevant to C D
policies and practices in the United States (see 1999 President's Council on

RESPONSE TO COMMUNITY-LEVEL ADVERSITY 325

 326

Sustainable Development, 1999). Economic sustainability, developing a local

economy that can be maintained without reliance on regular infusions of outside
capital or credit, was the original goal. Since the U.N.-sponsored Earth Summit
conferences, however, environmental sustainability, or developing means of
production that do not contaminate the ecosystem or exhaust natural resources, has
also become important. Analyses of sustainable development rarely transcend the
economic or bioecological. Yet the principle of sustainability can be usefully
expanded to include the political and social domains of CD as well. Political
sustainability at the local level can be thought of as developing and maintaining active
and meaningful participation in grassroots community organizations. The issues they
choose to address can make a big difference (Perkins et al., 1996; Perkins, Florin,
Rich, Wandersman, & Chavis, 1990). Development decisions must also be politically
sustainable, in legal and governance terms, on a societal level (Ginther et al., 1995).
Social sustainability may be considered the degree to which communities develop and
maintain social capital. Sustainability is strengths based in its emphasis on
ecologically healthy development over time based on renewable community resources.
Grassroots empowerment involves residents organizing collectively to
influence the institutions and problems affecting their community. Decisions are made,
democratically or consensually, from the bottom up by local organizations.
Empowerment operates at many levels, from psychological to organizational to
community. Block and neighborhood associations and tenant groups aim to empower
their members while improving community conditions (Perkins et al., 1990, 1996;
Saegert & Winkel, 1996; Speer & Hughey, 1995). Internationally, empowerment has
become a guiding principle for many CD organizations (Friedmann, 1992; Perkins,
1995). Empowerment is strengths based in focusing on people’s and communities’
rights, abilities, assets, and resources more than on their needs or problems.
Social capital, a popular concept among CD professionals and policy makers,
is the level of residents’ integration into the community in terms of informal networks
and mutual trust, participation in civic and service organizations, and links among
those organizations (Coleman, 1988). Faith-based CD is a form of social capital with a
long and effective history, especially in Latin America and the African American
community. Recently, CD researchers have emphasized the role of group learning
processes in building social capital in communities and organizations (Falk &
Harrison, 1998). Social capital fits well with our ecological focus because, in contrast
with the older term “human capital,” it focuses on the strengths related to
interdependent social networks (not simply on individual strengths, such as education
levels). As with empowerment, however, it is important for researchers and policy
makers to be specific about defining social capital, its formal and informal sources, the
dynamic processes to achieve it, and how to measure these along with its material
effects (Saegert & Winkel, 1998). It is also important not to focus so much on social
 327

capital that we ignore communities’ political, economic, and physical capital

(Bourdieu, 1985; DeFilippis, 2001; Perkins, Hughey, & Speer, 2002).
Capacity building refers to the development of skills, information, or other
organizational resources or the development of organizations and coalitions within an
entire community. Whereas social capital describes the small-scale community social
and political conditions for grassroots CD to occur, capacity building is a resource
development process applied to extant CD organizations. Both concepts are based on
the notion that communities have indigenous human resources that can be developed
and used to address community problems.
Asset-based community development (Kretzmann & McKnight, 1993) is an
approach to mobilizing people and local organizations for the social, economic, and
physical revitalization of a community. It is based on the identification, mapping, and
development of community assets or strengths, as opposed to needs or problems.
Assets are broadly defined and overlap well with our ecological model: they may be
physical (e.g., land, community gathering places), social (cohesion, volunteers),
economic (consumers, entrepreneurs and workers, funding agencies), and political
(voters, advocates, local officials, community leaders).
An example is Building a Healthier Mesa (Arizona) Neighborhood
Development Initiative (http://www.mc.maricopa.edu/academic/compact/carter.html).
When residents identified the need for a youth program and community center, they
created one in a backyard. When they outgrew that space, the city donated a new
property and hired a neighborhood liaison. The Initiative has grown into a coalition
headed by block and neighborhood leaders, with representation from United Way, the
Chamber of Commerce, public schools, and the local community college.
All five CD principles (sustainability, empowerment, social capital, capacity
building, and assets-based CD), as well as the terms strengths and resilience, are so
overused and co-opted for different ends that they have become buzzwords. Despite
their popularity, strengths-oriented CD concepts have not received the systematic
research and programmatic support they deserve. Although there has been a plethora
of government policies based, at least nominally, on empowerment (e.g.,
Empowerment Zones, discussed later in this chapter), most have failed to apply the
concept of empowerment clearly or consistently (Perkins, 1995).
By their very nature, strengths-based CD principles do not generally
require large public expenditures. Social capital and asset-based approaches, by
definition, rely primarily on local private resources, not public funding.
Sustainability implies that beyond any initial investment, the need for new
outside resources is limited. Yet many local CD programs would be greatly
enhanced with more government funding, technical assistance for capacity
building, sponsored research, and dissemination (Schorr, 1997). How to sup-
port grassroots C D efforts without compromising their autonomy or making
them dependent on that support is both a tremendous opportunity and a
challenge for policymakers.

A N ECOLOGICAL FRAMEWORK FOR COMMUNITY

DEVELOPMENT: ECONOMIC, POLITICAL, SOCIAL, A N D
PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENTAL COMPONENTS

Most of the C D literature addresses just one or two domains of adver-

sity. In contrast, our conceptual framework is ecological in placing C D si-
multaneously in the economic, political, social, and physical environmental
contexts in which adversities, and the policies and community action ad-
dressing those adversities, reside (see Figure 18.1). It is also ecological in
viewing C D as a dynamic and interdependent system operating at multiple
levels (individual, small group, organization, community), in which change
in one area and level affects the other areas and levels.' The following sec-
tions give examples of public and private C D strategies. The interdepen-
dence of these spheres of development becomes readily apparent in these
examples.

Economic Development

Urban redevelopment policies in the United States have focused o n

large, downtown projects and freeways at the expense of revitalizing older
neighborhoods. Cities have experienced fiscal crises, declining federal sup-
port, crumbling infrastructure, and myriad social problems (Palen, 1997).
But can waterfronts, ballparks, convention centers, and hotels undo the
"malling of America" (the flight of economic activity to the suburbs)?If they
could, how much good would it do the vast majority who live not in down-
towns, but in residential neighborhoods? Following are some promising pub-
lic and private strategies for community economic development.
Community development block grants represent a large federal expen-
diture that could address many community-level adversities. But during the
1980s, much block grant funding went to less needy neighborhoods to fund
public infrastructure instead of to housing, physical improvements, or eco-
nomic development in poor areas (Catlin, 1981; Watson, 1992). How should
these funds be targeted? Neighborhood revitalization's track record is mixed
(Ginsberg, 1983), but four generally successful strategies are (a) involving a

'For more o n the variables and relationships in the framework, see Perkins et al., 1996. For other
ecological principles applied to community organ~zingand development, see Speer and Hughey, 1995.
For links to community organizing and development-related Web sites, including many of the policies
and programs discussed in this chapter, see http://www.people.vanderbilt.edu/-douglas.d.perkins/
cdwebsites.htm.

328 PERK~NSET AL
 Smaller scale citizen and Community development
Larger scale public policy role community role process and outcome

Long-term financing, resources Short-term investments

Economic
environment
jobs with livable wages
small business assistance
housing and rehabilitation assistance
.home (repairs, improvements)
small business (local hiring and
patronage)
E c o and ~
comprehensive
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

.multilevel
t A
economic
political
Formal participation in
organizations, coalitions community organizations social
Political physical
environment Support CD policies, programs citizen advocacy and action
voting, registering voters
Strengths based
empowering
community
Community programs Informal community-focused assets, not
health care and promotion behaviors, attitudes, emotions needs or
Social better neighborhood schools place attachment, satisfaction problems
environment after-school programs social cohesion, commitment sustainable
community policing celebration of cultural diversity capacity
co~nmunitycorrections collective efficacy building
neighboring, support, mentoring social capital,
social control, crime prevention learning
communities
v
Mass transit, walkable neighborhoods */
Mixed housing and commercial use
Physical Maintenance, beautification
Creation and protection of public spaces
environment Community gardens, cleanups
Infrastructure: Schools, streets, lights
Services: Water, sanitation, fire,
-+ Use and care of public spaces
emergency
Environmental protection
. Community land trusts
Fight highways, contamination
Support housing, revitalization

Figure 18.1. An ecological framework for community development. CD = community development. Arrows indicate directions of theoretical
\o causal links. Two-headed arrows imply mutually reinforcing set of variables.
broad base of residents; (b) building on existing community strengths; (c)
promoting cooperation among local public and private agencies, along with
funding and technical support from higher levels; and (d) targeting common
urban problems, such as inadequate sense of community, safety, housing,
schools, youth programs, and economic opportunity (Schorr, 1997).
- ~

The Empowerment Zones/Enterprise Communities federal policy of the

1990s was based on the 1980s' "urban enterprise zones" of targeted capital
investment and training and employment tax incentives. Reviews of the policy
have been mixed, with critics arguing that the incentives were either too
- -

small (to offset entrenched poverty and related individual and community
disadvantages) or too large (essentially a business subsidy that does little for
local residents; Palen, 1997). But it incorporated several strengths approaches,
including a bottom-up orientation requiring local planning; partnerships
between business, government, and community organizations; and local hir-
ing requirements. Some Empowerment Zones enhanced resident opportuni-
ties and skills through job training, day care programs, and microcredit.
Community development financial institutions and local exchange trad-
ing systems are two of the newest and most innovative economic develop-
ment strategies. T h e former include CD-focused corporations, banks, ven-
ture capital funds, and microenterprise (microcredit) funds. They are
specifically dedicated to serving low-income individuals and communities
by developing investments, entrepreneurs, and jobs. Microcredit extends small
business loans to those who cannot qualify for a traditional loan because they
are poor or have no credit history. Loans are usually small (e.g., for a sewing
machine) and come with technical assistance and peer supports. The most
famous example of microcredit is Grameen Bank in Bangladesh, which orga-
nizes village loan pools, whose collective responsibility for debts gives bor-
rowers more incentive to repay on time. In the United States, South Shore
Bank in Chicago has made hundreds of millions of dollars of loans in poor,
inner-city neighborhoods. Working Capital in Cambridge, Massachusetts,
organizes low-income, small business owners into peer-lending groups.
Local exchange trading systems are bartering co-ops, including local
currency programs and "time dollar" exchanges. Ithaca Hours is an alterna-
tive economy that pays $10 an hour in a local currency that can be traded for
goods and services. Time dollars also equalize the value of work but have no
monetary value. In rural Utah, the Emery County C D Initiative developed a
Computers for Kids program, which matched junior high tutors with elemen-
tary school readers. The tutors earned time dollars, which they used to "pur-
chase" donated computers.

Political Development and Housing Policy

Grassroots organizing, or political CD, is a key, though often ignored,

activating ingredient for any C D program's chances of stopping and revers-
ing the process of neighborhood decline. It empowers residents, is a long-
term solution, costs little (other than time and energy), and helps maintain
neighborhood stability (Perkins et al., 1996; Speer & Hughey, 1995). Politi-
cal C D means both pressuring every level of government through commu-
nity organizations and larger coalitions and creating private, nonprofit com-
munity self-help programs.
Local, nonprofit C D housing programs address the political and eco-
nomic gaps in the housing market. They turn homeless people into renters
and renters into homeowners. Homeowncrs are less likely to move and
more likely to have a material stake not only in their own home, but in
their entire neighborhood, on which property values depend. Many such
programs are based on the limited-equity home ownership model ("urban
homesteadingn or "sweat equity") for providing privately owned housing to
low- and moderate-income families. These "third sector" housing programs
differ from for-profit housing in both their initial and their permanent
affordability (Davis, 1994). A limit is typically placed on the future price at
which units may be rented or resold. New York City has seized hundreds of
tax-defaulted apartment buildings and turned them over to the existing-
low-income residents as limited-equity co-ops. Empowering those residents
to take control over the revitalization and maintenance of their buildings
has resulted in significant improvements in housing y a l i t y (Saegert &
Winkel, 1996, 1998).
Community land trusts can be used for any particular land usc (hous-
ing, commercial, or open space) or purpose (historic preservation, local
control, neighborhood revitalization; Peterson, 1996). Similar to conser-
vation trusts, which are used to protect open space or agricultural land,
community land trusts also acquire land but usually for affordable housing
or other C D ends. In general, democratically run groups, such as Share the
Future in Hcber, Utah, own the land collectively but lease parcels of it to
individuals for long-term use. Buildings o n the land are sold to the indi-
vldual lessee. This, along with resale price restrictions, helps keep owner-
ship affordable for the duration of the trust. Community land trusts have
reserved family farms, helped stem the cost inflation associated with specu-
lation and gentrification,
- educated first-time home buyers, and developed
special-needs housing and commercial space for lower income entrcpre-
neurs (Peterson, 1996). They protect or improve the physical environment,
are a political and economic innovation, and can result in social benefits
and so illustrate well the interdependence of all four domains of C D in our
framework.
Direct government roles tn improving low-income housing rest largely
on returning public and subsidized housing budgets to an adequate level. Other
housing-focused C D policies include encouraging incumbent upgrading (hous-
ing improvements by long-term residents, not gentrifiers and speculators)
through CD block grants and subsidized loans, increasing management ac-

RESPONSE T O COMMUNIT\I'-LEVEL ADVERSITY 33 1

countability in public housing through tenant organizations2 and improved
quality assurance and grievance procedures, and mixing housing cost levels
to avoid concentrated ghetto effects.

Social Development

Cultural diversity, sometimes described as a potential adversity (if preju-

dice, discrimination, and conflict are left unchallenged), is better viewed as a
community asset. Diverse neighborhoods can be interesting and vibrant places
to live. Different groups bring different perspectives, knowledge, connections,
and strengths to the community and its organizations. C D efforts must in-
clude public events that celebrate diversity and help residents learn about
and appreciate their differences. Organizations must actively recruit mem-
bers of different groups and accommodate differences in language, religious
and cultural holidays, and other customs.
Social cohesion consists of a variety of behaviors, attitudes, and emo-
tions that signify the social and psychological creation of community (Perkins
et al., 1996). Areas with more-neighborliness, greater use of outdoor space,
and informal social control of behavior exhibit better quality of life and a
greater commitment of members to the community. This commitment both
is motivated by and leads to a stronger sense of community and collective
efficacy, as well as satisfaction with, pride in, and attachment to the people
and place and confidence in its future (Perkins et al., 1990). Social cohesion
is the strongest and most consistent predictor of citizen participation in C D
(Perkins et al., 1990, 1996). C D organizations, in turn, encourage greater
community cohesion by helping residents to discuss and work to address shared
- -

concerns and by sponsoring cultural events. Public officials, community lead-

ers, and organizers cannot afford to ignore social cohesion. Communities
without it will be hard to mobilize, and communities with it will be better
able to change policies with which they disagree.
Community crime prevention programs may be organized by civilians
or police or may focus on the physical environment. Civilian crime preven-
tion encompasses both various victimization prevention strategies (e.g., pub-
licizing crimes, increasing home security, organizing resident surveillance;
Rosenbaum, 1986) and broader, more strengths-based approaches addressing
the root causes of crime (via youth development, employment, or other C D
programs). Community-oriented policing consists of a variety of methods
(foot patrol, neighborhood miniprecincts, school programs, community crime
information meetings and newsletters, home security checks) for officers to
interact more with the community, gain their trust, and address local crime
and delinquency problems. Related to community environmental develop-

IIt is important that tenant organizations be legitimate, empowered, and active. Just as housing
authorities that are unresponsive or disregard agreements erode tenants' sense of collective efficacy,
mandated or token participation can undermine community strengths.

332 PERK~NSET AL.

ment, Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design, or "defensible
space," is a set of architectural and planning principles that encourage natu-
ral surveillance and a sense of ownership and limit access in ways that deter
crime (Taylor & Harrell, 1996).
Crime rates in the United States have generally gone down over the
past 20 years, although there is little empirical evidence for any law enforce-
ment or crime prevention strategy being responsible for that drop. Further-
more, crime and fear tend not to elicit broad or lasting citizen participation
(Perkins et al., 1990, 1996). A more promising study of neighborhoods and
crime found that, controlling for demographics, communities with more so-
cial cohesion and informal social control suffered less violence (Sampson,
Raudenbush, &Earls, 1997). Taken together, these findings suggest that com-
munity anticrime policy must take a more comprehensive, empowerment
approach that addresses the root causes of crime and motivates active com-
munity participation through a combination of CD and prevention programs
for youth.

Physical Environmental Development

The condition of the local physical environment is closely linked to

resident fears, confidence in the community's future, and participation in
community organizations (Perkins et al., 1990,1996;Skogan, 1990). People's
attachments to their neighborhood as a place are linked to less crime, fear,
and disorder and better housing and home satisfaction (Brown & Perkins,
2001). Organized activities to clean up parks, streets, and yards and to re-
place vacant lots with urban gardens are excellent ways to get and keep people
involved in their community.
New development should promote the quality and vitality of commu-
nity life and preserve open space. City and regional planning, design, and
transportation must be geared toward people and transit (not cars), density
(not sprawl), and mixed-use zoning (not suburbia, with its isolated subdivi-
sions, shopping malls, freeways, and office parks; Calthorpe & Fulton, 2001).
Some communities must pay even more serious heed to environmental
conditions. Contamination and other environmental disasters and threats
require government support for cleanup and protection. But they also require
community organization and development to keep local residents united
(Edelstein, 2001). Community Development focused on protecting the en-
vironment can have an empowering effect at both the individual and com-
munity level (Rich et al., 1995).
Although community developers have become more environmentally
conscious, they have not benefited from as much collaboration or coalition
building with environmental groups as they could. Yet environmental devel-
opment is perhaps the ideal context for sustainability theory. For new con-
struction (e.g., highway, housing, natural resource development, manufactur-

RESPONSE T O COMMUNITY-LEVEL ADVERSlTY 333

ing plant) to be sustainable, it must neither pollute or deplete resources nor
poison the social and economic climate. It must also be politically acceptable:
The decision process must be open and truly participatoly from beginning (gath-
ering and evaluating information) to end (ideally, using a partnership rather
than an adversarial approach to making and implementing decisions).
T h e Sawmill neighborhood in Albuquerque, New Mexico, is an ex-
ample of a community that started out by rallying around an environmental
issue and kept residents involved over the long term by thinking ecologically
about the economic, social, and political, as well as physical, health of the
community. The community initially organized against a particleboard fac-
tory that had been polluting the neighborhood for years. After a successful
cleanup campaign, the residents formed a C D corporation to help the city
develop the abandoned property. As the neighborhood began to gentrify,
they formed a community land trust to keep housing affordable to successive
generations. The Sawmill Community Land Trust continues to thrive and
recently broke ground o n a 27-acre commercial, residential, and open space
development.

POLICY RECOMMEI'JDATIONS TO ADDRESS COMMUNITY-

LEVEL ADVERSITY THROUGH STRENGTHS-BASED
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMEhTT
T h e strengths*based approaches to community level adversity outlined
in this chapter point to specific policy recommendations at the local, state,
and federal levels. In most cases, these policy recommendations are not new-
they are being implemented in individual communities or states and are in-
cluded here as examples of policies that can be replicated or adapted in other
localities. Some of the federal policies discussed in this chapter can be made
more effective by strengthening community control and implementing pro-
grams in more coordinated and integrated ways that address all four forms of
community adversity.
Although government entities can and should be partners in facilitat-
ing, financing, and coordinating C D programs, the process for planning and
implementing programs should be community driven. This is a critical point.
The call for "maximum feasible participation" of the community has been
around for decades. Yet in practice government often makes only minimum
efforts to elicit meaningful participation ( Perkins, 1995). Both research and
practice in participation and empowerment may be helpful in changing this
(Friedmann, 1992; Kretzmann & McKnight, 1993; Perkins et al., 1996; Saegert
& Winkel, 1996; Speer & Hughey, 1995).
T h e common thread, and some would say the root cause, running
through each form of community adversity is the economic marginalization
of certain individuals and communities. Thus, it is in this area that we offer
the broadest range of recommendations, all of which attempt to focus eco-

334 PERKINS ET AL.

nomic resources and control at the local level. We have not categorized the
recommendations by area of adversity (economic, political, social, and physical
environmental), because we believe approaches should be designed to ad-
dress multiple areas in an integrated manner.
Our recommendations are in the following categories: facilitating the
ability of individuals and neighborhoods to address adversity on their own;
directing state and local resources to community and economic development,
controlled by neighborhoods and communities; and strengthening existing
federal policies to support a strengths-based approach. The first category most
clearly represents the CD principles of s~stainabilit~, empowerment, social
capital, capacity building, and asset-based CD. But those working at the
grassroots level know best how critical government resources are at every
level to address the most entrenched adversities and support communities'
own efforts.

Facilitate Grassroots Initiatives

Local governments can support the development of organized mutual

supports such as block and neighborhood associations and local exchange
trading systems. City staff and resources can be applied to a broad range of
indigenous CD approaches by providing training and technical assistance as
well as community outreach.

State, Local, and Regional Community Development Policies

State and local governments are well positioned to direct resources to

the communities most in need, but they often fail to do so or to connect
related policies to each other. Strengths-based local and state CD policies
would invest in programs that provide opportunities for economic develop-
ment at both the individual and community levels, such as microcredit pro-
grams, C D financial institutions, community land trusts, and individual de-
velopment accounts that match the savings of low-income individuals with
public or private funds for purposes of education, business start-up, or hous-
ing acquisition.
There are numerous examples of communities that use local or state
economic development subsidies or financing mechanisms to overcome ad-
versities. These include tax increment financing or industrial revenue bonds
for job creation and affordable housing development (e.g., housing trust funds)
and tax credits and other incentives to increase wages and benefits or estab-
lish "first source" agreements (in which employers commit to offer jobs first
to local workers or other target populations, such as welfare recipients, or to
promote greater permanence in the jobs created). Other communities use
these subsidies to develop industrial retention and expansion programs aimed
at keeping higher wage manufacturing jobs in a community. Some commu-

RESPONSE T O COMMUNITY-LEVEL ADVERSITY 33.5

nities have successfully addressed economic and environmental adversity by
improving transit for low-income citizens, and others have developed elabo-
rate sectoral job creation strategies that target unique local skills, assets, or
resources to strengthen the local economy. For example, a rural community
in Utah that suffered the closure of a sawmill formed a partnership between
local unemployed workers and environmentalists to practice sustainable har-
vesting of wood products and to develop a market for the value-added prod-
ucts created by a cooperative of local woodworkers.
Local planning and zoning authority can be used in more strengths-
oriented ways to promote low-cost housing, improve the social and environ-
mental characteristics of neighborhoods, and assist small business (e.g., mixed-
use zoning). Inclusionary zoning ordinances require that a certain percentage
of new housing be affordable. Local governments are seizing abandoned, un-
safe, and tax-defaulted properties for low-income rehabilitation.
One proposal for keeping the most concerned and resourced residents
involved in their own communities is to improve neighborhood public schools
(as opposed to magnet or charter schools or vouchers for private schools) so
that children stay in the neighborhood. Schools are one of the most impor-
tant institutional anchors for any community and the second most common
place for community participation (after religious organizations). Parents and
even local businesses are playing a more direct role in education. Federal
leadership and resources are also needed. But the biggest responsibility still
rests with state and local government.
Community development policies tend to concentrate o n central busi-
ness districts, residential neighborhoods, or rural areas, but rarely all three at
once. This is a serious problem because it tends to preclude mixed-use devel-
opment, metropolitan region transportation planning, open-space preserva-
tion, and other aspects of ecologically "smart growth" and "new urbanism"
(Calthorpe & Fulton, 2001).

Strengthening Federal Policies

Fannie Mae, the U.S. Rural Development Agency, and other agencies
are beginning to support such strengths-based C D initiatives as community
land trusts, self-help housing, individual development accounts, and
microlending institutions. The Council for Urban Economic Development
recently issued a detailed federal policy agenda, including a focus o n skills
training for the knowledge economy, encouragement of private investment
in CD, and other strengths approaches (Garmise, 2001). We would add that
many existing federal programs, although consistent with a strengths orien-
tation to community development, are underfunded (e.g., low-income hous-
ing, Empowerment Zones, C D block grants, earned income tax credits). Others
have inadequate provisions for private investment, including the Commu-
nity Reinvestment Act (which is currently under serious political threat),

336 PERK~NSET AL.

the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act, and minimum wage laws (Center for
Community Change, 2003; Federal Financial Institutions Examination Coun-
cil, 2003; U.S. Department of Labor, 2003). Some federal programs should
be expanded to other agencies (e.g., Housing and Urban Development's
Community Outreach Partnership Program and its HOME Program's incen-
tives for subcontracts to local C D organizations) or to younger target popula-
tions (e.g., Americorps service or C D job opportunities for high school and
college students). Student loan forgiveness programs could be expanded to
include college graduates who do community development work in poor ur-
ban and rural areas (similar to incentives for teachers and doctors to select
underserved areas in which to work).
There is also a need for more federal funding of ecological research (i.e.,
systemic, interdisciplinary, multimethod, longitudinal research analyzed at
multiple, ecologically valid levels) and for strengths-based C D research (i.e.,
participatory, driven by locally defined needs, and leading to the identifica-
tion and development of individual and community assets). T h e Ford Foun-
dation is not the major supporter of C D research it once was. The Fannie
Mae Foundation has filled some of that gap but tends to emphasize housing
rather than the broad range of C D issues. T h e Department of Housing and
Urban Development continues to fund a broad range of C D projects, includ-
ing some major university-based ones; however, it has always funded more
interventions than research. Another important federal role in C D research
is to ensure that national data gathering better reflects the ecological and
strengths orientation toward community-level adversities and development
(and not just individual or household indicators).
Although funding is important, federal leadership is also critical for
regulatory changes. For example, often C D block grant and other resources
are captured and redirected by political interests outside the control of
marginalized communities. State and local applications of federal strategies
could have greater impact if their regulations specifically required broader
and more meaningful participation, not only by the general public but also
by the low-income communities facing the greatest adversities. A more spe-
cific example of a regulatory problem is that limited-equity, low-income hous-
ing cooperatives do not have access to tax credit financing. Federal under-
writing practices often prohibit mortgages for extended families or co-ops
and restrict the construction of common spaces that would make group life
more productive. A recent exception is the loosening of restrictions on com-
mon space in housing for elderly people, which may open the door to better
accommodations for collective ownership models.

CONCLUSION
Dividing C D policies by level of government helps to target advocacy,
but it runs counter to the ecological and systemic perspective we advocate.

RESPONSE T O COMMUNITY-LEVEL ADVERSITY 337

Some of the most compelling examples of C D are the growing number of
comprehensive community revitalization initiatives (e.g., Dudley Street
Neighborhood Initiative in Boston, Massachusetts, and Sandtown-Winchester
in Baltimore, Maryland) and comprehensive community health and substance
abuse prevention initiatives, which are encouraged by multiple public and
private funding agencies. Thus, C D policies at all levels must include both
programs to address as many of the social problems discussed in this volume
as possible (not just infrastructure and economic development, as important
as those are) and meaningful participation at the grassroots level. By the
same token, interventions that deal only with the social and psychological
symptoms of poverty and injustice and do not address the economic and
political root causes of those problems or make real and tangible gains in
people's lives (e.g., decent affordable housing, livable-wage jobs, crime re-
duction, cleaned up neighborhoods and toxic sites) may be doomed to fail.
Implicit in this chapter are at least three different, but equally valid,
strengths-based orientations. These include C D policies and organizations
that strengthen individuals and communities by building on existing strengths
(e.g., community assets and citizens as social capital vs. communities and
citizens viewed only as problems); developing new strengths (i.e., empower-
ing and capacity building vs. top-down, bureaucratic decision making, blam-
ing victims and trying to fix them), and making the goal the development of
economically, politically, socially, and physically sustainable and healthy
environments (vs. the mere absence of adversities).
C D is relevant to each of the other chapters in this volume because C D
programs and policies reduce, at the community level, many of the adversi-
ties discussed in the other chapters. Furthermore, C D directly contributes to
the capacity of individuals, organizations, and communities to cope with any
remaining psychosocial adversities, thereby strengthening children, youth,
and families in the process.

REFERENCES

Bourdieu, P. (1985). The forms of capital. In J. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of theory

and research for the sociology of education (pp. 241-258). New York: Greenwood.
Brown, B. B., & Perkins, D. D. (2001). Neighborhood revitalization and disorder: A n
intervention evaluation (Report to National Institute of Justice). Salt Lake City,
UT: University of Utah.
Bullard, R. D. (Ed.). (1994). Unequal protection: Environmental justice and communi-
ties of color. San Francisco: Sierra Club Books.
Calthorpe, P., & Fulton, W. (2001). The regional city: Planning for the end of sprawl.
Washington, DC: Island Press.
Catlin, R. A. (1981). An analysis of the Community Development Block Grant
Program in nine Florida cities. Urban and Social Change Review, 14,3-11.

338 PERK~NSET AL
Caughy, M. O., O'Campo, P., & Brodsky, A. E. (1999). Neighborhoods, families,
and children: Implications for policy and practice. lournal of Community Psy-
chology, 27, 615-633.
Center for Community Change (2003). Financial modernization moving in the house:
Community Reinvestment Act. Retrieved June 11, 2003, from http://www.
communitychange.org/cralinks.htm
Coleman, J. S. (1988). Social capital and the creation of human capital. American
Journal of Sociology, 94, 95-1 20.
Davis, J. E. (Ed.). (1994). The affordable city: Toward a third sector housing policy.
Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
DeFilippis, J. (2001). The myth of social capital in community development. Hous-
ing Policy Debate, 12, 781-806.
Edelstein, M. R. (2001). Contaminated communities: Psychosocial impacts from the con-
tamination of home and place (2nd ed.). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Falk, I., & Harrison, L. (1998). Community learning and social capital: "Just having
a little chat." Journal of Vocational Education and Training, 50, 609-627.
Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council (2003). Home Mortgage Disclo-
sure Act. Retrieved June, 11, 2003, from http://www.ffiec.gov/hmda/
Friedmann, J. (1992).Emnpowennent: The politics ofalternative development. Cambridge,
M A : Blackwell.
Garmise, S. 0 . (2001). Ensuring the knowledge economy means prosperity for all: A
federal policy agenda. Washington, DC: Council for Urban Economic Develop-
ment.
Ginsberg, R. (1983). Community development strategies evaluation: Offsite effects. Phila-
delphia: University of Pennsylvania.
Ginther, K., Denters, E., & de Waart, P. J. I. M. (1995). Smtainable development and
good governance. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Martinus Nijhoff.
Kretzmann, J. P., & McKnight, J. L. (1993). Building communities from the inside out:
A path toward finding and mobilizing a community's assets. Chicago: A C T A .
Palen, J. J. (1997). The urban world (5th ed.). New York: McGraw-HilI.
Perkins, D. D. (1995). Speaking truth to power: Empowerment ideology as social
intervention and policy. American ]ournal of Community Psychology, 23, 765-
794.
Perkins, D. D., Brown, B. B., &Taylor, R. B. (1996). The ecology of empowerment:
Predicting participation in community organizations. lournal of Social Issues,
52, 85-1 10.
Perkins, D. D., Florin, P., Rich, R. C., Wandersman, A., & Chavis, D. M. (1990).
Participation and the social and physical environment of residential blocks:
Crime and community context. A7nerican]ournal of Community Psychology, 18,
83-1 15.
Perkins, D. D., Hughey, J., & Speer, P. W. (2002). Community psychology perspec-
tives on social capital theory and community development practice. Iournal of
the Community Development Society, 33, 33-52.

RESPONSE T O COIMMUNITY-LEVELADVERSlTY 339

Perkins, D. D., &Taylor, R. B. (1996). Ecological assessments of community disor-
der: Their relationship to fear of crime and theoretical implications. American
Journal of Community Psychology, 24, 63-107.
Perkins, D. D., Wandersman, A.. Rich, R. C., &Taylor, R. B. (1993). The physical
environment of street crime: Defensible space, territoriality and incivilities.Jour-
nal of Environmental Psychology, 13, 29-49.
Peterson, T. (1996). Community land trusts: A n introduction. PIanning Commission-
ers Journal,23, 10.
President's Council on Sustainable Development (1999). Toward a st~stainableAmerica:
Advancing prosperity, opportunity, and a healthy environment for the 2ist century.
USGPO. Retrieved June 30, 2003, from http://clinton2.nara.gov/PCSD/
Rao, P. K. (2000). Sustainable development: Economics and policy. Malden, MA:
Blackwell.
Rich, R. C., Edelstein, M., Hallman, W. K., & Wandersman, A. H. (1995). Citizen
participation and empowerment: The case of local environmental hazards.
American Journal of Community Psychology, 23, 657-676.
Rosenbaum, D. P. (Ed.). (1986). Community crime prevention: Does it work? Beverly
Hills, CA: Sage.
Saegert, S., & Winkel, G. (1996). Paths to community empowerment: Organizing at
home. American Journal of Community Psychology, 24, 5 17-550.
Saegert, S., & Winkel, G. (1998). Social capital and the revitalization of New York
City's distressed inner city housing. Housing Policy Debate, 9, 17-60.
Sampson, R. J., Raudenbush, S. W., & Earls, F. (1997). Neighborhoods and violent
crime: A multilevel study of collective efficacy. Science, 277, 918-926.
Schorr, L. B. (1997). Common purpose: Strengthening families and neighborhoods to re-
build America. Iqew York: Anchor.
Skogan, W. ( 1990). Disorder and decline. New York: Free Press.
Speer, I-'. W., & Hughey, J. (1995). Community organizing: A n ecological route to
empowerment and power. AmericanJournal of Community Psychology, 23, 729-
748.
Taylor, R. B., & Harrell, A. V. (1996). Physical environment and crime: N1J research
report. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.
United Nations Development Program. (1995). Human development report 1995: The
revolution for gender equality. New York: Oxford University Press.
U.S. Department of Labor. (2003). Minimum wage. Retrieved June 11, 2003, from
http://www.dol.gov/dol/topic/wages/minimum wage.htm
Wandersman, A., & Nation, M. (1998). Urban neighborhoods and mental health:
Psychological contributions to understanding toxicity, resilience, and interven-
tions. American Psychologist, 53, 647-656.
Watson, S. S. (1992). Decentralizing community development decisions: A study of
Oklahoma's Small Cities Program. Publius, 22, 109-122.

PERKINS ET AL.