**Social Capital**

**NRCS --Social Sciences Institute**

**Technical Note 5.1**

**March, 2002**

**Adding Up Social Capital: An Investment in Communities**

Over the last century, social scientists have examined three types of
\"capital\" \-- human capital, economic capital, and social capital.
***Human capital*** represents the skills, talents and education that a
person has developed throughout his/her life. When this person moves
from a geographical area, they take their human capital with them.
***Economic capital*** is defined as a factor of production along with
labor, land, and natural resources. Examples include buildings,
equipment, and inventories. ***Social capital*** is defined as bonds of
trust that arise between people interacting in everyday life, including
interacting in formal organizations such as churches, civic groups, and
recreational leagues.

Evaluating the level of ***social capital*** in communities in which
NRCS field staff and District Boards work can directly benefit
conservation planners. Humans are social creatures who often achieve
more when cooperatively working, playing, and entertaining each other.
Most of us are familiar with communities that seem to accomplish a great
deal by working together, and other communities that seem unable to
complete anything they start no matter how good the idea. \"High\"
amounts of social capital can help a community be physically healthy,
socially progressive, and economically vigorous. \"Low\" amounts of
social capital typically result in suspicion, community disagreements,
and unsuccessful attempts to solve problems**. Based on research in the
social sciences, the list of indicators in the table that follows will
help you evaluate and measure social capital in local communities.**

What do you do for a community with low social capital? People can
overcome even the most formidable obstacles, but first need to be aware
of the nature of the obstacle. If you determine that a community has a
low level of social capital, you can get immediate help identifying ways
to increase the community\'s ability to deal with their resource
concerns by accessing the Social Sciences Institute web site
<http://www.ssi.nrcs.usda.gov/> or calling an NRCS sociologist.

Three cautions regarding the procedure. **First**, it is not a survey
but a tool that can be filled out by one person or by a small team made
up of the local conservation partnership. **Second,** cities, counties,
and communities have multiple communities residing within one another.
Even if areas are geo-physically identifiable, there may be multiple
subgroups based on culture, religion, income or education residing
within the larger area. Thus, you may need to separate communities into
sub-communities and apply the procedure repeatedly to attain meaningful
measurements. Assessing social capital can be complicated, which
generates our final caution. **Third**, the development of the list of
indicators is based largely on scientific research, but the results are
not scientifically precise. The numbers you calculate in this procedure
are relative not interval numbers.[^1] The object of study - people
interacting with each other - may be more difficult to measure than the
Total Maximum Daily Load, soil quality, phosphorous levels, or rates of
soil erosion. This is due to the fact that people can self-consciously
change, learn, forget, act differently in groups, act irrationally, and
basically behave unpredictably.

Assessing social capital can help you determine how quickly a community
will be able to mobilize its human and social resources. Reducing
community conflicts and tapping into community cooperation can help get
conservation on the ground quicker and easier. An example of a community
with high levels of social capital is evident in the story of Otter
Creek and the surrounding communities in the state of Illinois. To read
the complete story of Otter Creek, go to SSI\'s web site
<http://www.ssi.nrcs.usda.gov/ssi/B_Stories/A_Introduction.htm#technotes>
and click on T008.

The Otter Lake Resource Planning Committee dealt foremost with an
atrazine problem to ensure safe drinking water for the community
residents who were using Otter Lake for their drinking water. Farmers,
developers, the business community, tourist interests, fishermen/women,
and local politicians were all on board with the planning process. The
town\'s people and farmers had high trust of one another and well they
should. The local farmers, representing less than 2 percent of the
residents living near the lake or enjoying the lake\'s amenities, could
have dragged their feet and ignored the problem. Farmers did not use
Otter Creek Lake for their drinking water but, instead, used wells for
their personal use. However, farmers wanted to be able to look their
neighbors in the eye and know they were doing the right thing by
implementing conservation activities. One farmer (Farely Cole) who
served on the planning committee stated,

> \"We go to church with people who get water from Otter Lake. We see
> them in grocery stores. Most farmers want to circulate around the
> communities without stress. We didn\'t want 14,000 upset with less
> than 2 percent of the population.\"

The locally led conservation plan not only successfully addressed water
quality but also other pertinent resources and areas of concern such as
soil erosion, wildlife habitat, recreation, education and communication,
riparian zones, wetlands, fisheries, forest lands, pasture and forage
lands, streambank protection, etc.

The example of Otter Lake is meant to put a face on the procedure that
you will look at on the following pages. Go through the procedure by
applying it to the community that you are most familiar with to see how
your community measures up.

**Procedure to Measure Social Capital**

***Method:** Please rate the following assets/resource/processes in your
community/county/district/parish. Make sure you rate each indicator. The
footnotes on some indicators provide you with national information to
help you compare the community. You may feel you are knowledgeable
enough to do the rating yourself or you may want to assemble a local
team. Please note that we are asking for general categorical responses
to the indicators, and not specific numbers. Calculate a grand total and
compare this total with the scoring index that follows.*

+-----------------------------+---------+---------+--------+---------+
| **Community Participation,  | *       | **3**   | **2**  | **Low** |
| Assets, Resources, and      | *High** |         |        |         |
| Processes**                 |         |         |        | **1**   |
|                             | **4**   |         |        |         |
+-----------------------------+---------+---------+--------+---------+
| 1.  Number of community     |        |        |       |        |
|     volunteers[^2]          |         |         |        |         |
+-----------------------------+---------+---------+--------+---------+
| 2.  Participation in the    |        |        |       |        |
|     local Parent Teachers   |         |         |        |         |
|     Association [^3]        |         |         |        |         |
+-----------------------------+---------+---------+--------+---------+
| 3.  Church membership[^4]   |        |        |       |        |
+-----------------------------+---------+---------+--------+---------+
| 4.  Participation in civic  |        |        |       |        |
|     organizations[^5]       |         |         |        |         |
+-----------------------------+---------+---------+--------+---------+
| 5.  Local contributions to  |        |        |       |        |
|     charitable              |         |         |        |         |
|     organizations[^6]       |         |         |        |         |
+-----------------------------+---------+---------+--------+---------+
| 6.  Participation in        |        |        |       |        |
|     farm/ranch              |         |         |        |         |
|     organizations           |         |         |        |         |
+-----------------------------+---------+---------+--------+---------+
| 7.  Participation in        |        |        |       |        |
|     environmental           |         |         |        |         |
|     organizations           |         |         |        |         |
+-----------------------------+---------+---------+--------+---------+
| 8.  Leadership              |        |        |       |        |
|     effectiveness           |         |         |        |         |
+-----------------------------+---------+---------+--------+---------+
| 9.  Participation in public |        |        |       |        |
|     meetings                |         |         |        |         |
+-----------------------------+---------+---------+--------+---------+
| 10. Wide participation in   |        |        |       |        |
|     community decisions     |         |         |        |         |
+-----------------------------+---------+---------+--------+---------+
| 11. Minority participation  |        |        |       |        |
|     in community            |         |         |        |         |
|     organizations (racial,  |         |         |        |         |
|     ethnic, gender,         |         |         |        |         |
|     religious, etc.)        |         |         |        |         |
+-----------------------------+---------+---------+--------+---------+
| 12. H.S. graduates who go   |        |        |       |        |
|     to college (national    |         |         |        |         |
|     average is in the lower |         |         |        |         |
|     60^th^ percentile[^7])  |         |         |        |         |
+-----------------------------+---------+---------+--------+---------+
| 13. Percent of community    |        |        |       |        |
|     members who have        |         |         |        |         |
|     Internet access [^8]    |         |         |        |         |
+-----------------------------+---------+---------+--------+---------+
| 14. Community income levels |        |        |       |        |
|     [^9]                    |         |         |        |         |
+-----------------------------+---------+---------+--------+---------+
| 15. Community educational   |        |        |       |        |
|     levels [^10]            |         |         |        |         |
+-----------------------------+---------+---------+--------+---------+
| 16. Local media coverage    |        |        |       |        |
+-----------------------------+---------+---------+--------+---------+
| 17. Number of community     |        |        |       |        |
|     citizens who exercise   |         |         |        |         |
|     their right to vote     |         |         |        |         |
|     [^11]                   |         |         |        |         |
+-----------------------------+---------+---------+--------+---------+
| 18. Government assistance   |        |        |       |        |
|     [^12]                   |         |         |        |         |
+-----------------------------+---------+---------+--------+---------+
| 19. Likelihood that         |        |        |       |        |
|     community projects are  |         |         |        |         |
|     completed               |         |         |        |         |
+-----------------------------+---------+---------+--------+---------+
| **Column Totals**           |         |         |        |         |
+-----------------------------+---------+---------+--------+---------+
| **Grand Total**             |         |         |        |         |
+-----------------------------+---------+---------+--------+---------+

  ----------------------------------- -----------------------------------
  **SCORE**                           **QUALITATIVE RATING**

  64 to 76                            High Social Capital

  50 to 63                            Moderate Social Capital

  49 and below                        Low Social Capital
  ----------------------------------- -----------------------------------

**Social Capital and Locally Led Training**

In many ways, the ability of communities to successfully implement
locally led conservation planning is related to social capital. If the
community you rated scored \"moderate\" or \"low\" in social capital,
the following web site
<http://www.ssi.nrcs.usda.gov/ssi/C_Training/TR001_LocallyLed.htm>
provides instructions for how to acquire a video and nine training
modules on the locally led planning process. Additionally, there is a
second evaluation procedure on this web site that scores your efforts on
implementing past, present, or future locally led conservation planning.

**Contact**

If you have questions or comments, contact Frank Clearfield, Director,
Social Sciences Institute, at (336) 334-7058; or send an e-mail message:
<clearf@ncat.edu>

**References**

Koretz, Gene

2001 \"Why Americans Grow Apart: Behind the Fraying Social Fabric.\"
*Business Week*, July 23, p. 30

Putnam, Robert D.

2000. [Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American
      Community]{.underline}. New York: Simon and Schuster.

Social Sciences Institute, Natural Resources Conservation Service

1999. Social Aspects of Outreach Workshop. Internal NRCS publication.
      (June).

Thigpen, John F., Curtis Beus, Donna Adcock, and Frank Clearfield

1995. \"Communities, Agriculture, and Water Quality\", in *Influence of
      Social Trends on Agricultural Natural Resources*, Working Paper
      No. 19B. Co-sponsored by the RCA and the Social Sciences
      Institute, Washington, D.C. (Symposium, May 31 - June 2)

[^1]: Relative numbers mean that the scale is qualitative and measures
    of \"high\", \"medium\", and \"low\" can be \"calls to action\"
    rather than immutable measures of social capital. The scale is not
    composed of interval numbers \[1, 2, 3...n\]; i.e., numbers that
    have the same meaning regardless of their location on a scale
    because of many reasons including (mis)interpretations.

[^2]: Robert Putnam (2000: 128) reports the \"average American\"
    volunteered in general about 8 times during a one-year period and
    about two times per year for community projects.

[^3]: As of 1999, 18 per 100 families were members of the PTA (Putnam,
    2000: 57)

[^4]: There is a difference between polling data from Gallup and church
    records. When asked if they are church members in 1999 surveys
    conducted by the Gallup organization, about 68% responded favorably,
    while church records indicates 60% were church members (Putnam,
    2000: 70).

[^5]: Civic organizations refer to a multitude of traditional and newly
    formed citizen\'s groups. Examples of traditional civic groups
    include Rotary, Jaycees, Lions, Elks, American Legion, Kiwanis,
    Optimists, Moose, National Rifle Association, etc. Some newly formed
    civic groups are National Organization for Women, Wilderness
    society, American Association for Retired People, a plethora of
    self-awareness groups, etc. Your rating can be balanced by your
    knowledge of membership and asking club officers about recent
    participation in these groups.

[^6]: Putnam (2000: 124-127) reports that as of 1999 total charitable
    giving as a percentage of national income was .016 percent.
    Moreover, between 30 and 40 percent reported respectively that they
    contributed to a charity in the last month (Roper) or gave
    occasionally to a religious organization (Yankelovich). A local
    source for assessing charitable contributions could be the local
    branch of the United Way.

[^7]: Number of H.S. students who are enrolled in college the following
    October after graduation has a range in the 1990\'s from the 60^th^
    to the 67^th^ percentile. The source is the U.S. Department of
    Commerce, Bureau of the Census. October Current Population Surveys,
    various years
    <http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/2001/section3/tables/t26_1.html>

[^8]: According to the Commerce Department, 54 percent of Americans used
    the Internet in September 2001. This is up from 44 percent in 2000
    and 22 percent in 1997 - with increases among all races, income
    levels and educational backgrounds. Within this statistic, overall
    home access was 44 percent of the U.S. population in 2001. The
    debate of whether Internet access contributes or detracts from
    social capital is not settled, and probably won\'t be settled for
    decades. Some articles suggest that library use is up precipitously
    because of Internet use (Portland Business Journal, July 27, 2001
    *Internet Connection Increases Library Usage*
    <http://portland.bizjournals.com/portland/stories/2001/07/23/daily39.html>
    ) While other research has shown that the Internet increases
    communication but not necessarily human interaction.
    <http://www.apa.org/journals/amp/amp5391017.html> Our assumption
    here is that Internet access is correlated with income and education
    (which are correlated with social capital) and Internet usage widens
    people perspective and contributes positively toward social capital.

[^9]: According to the 2000 census, the national median household income
    is \$42,148. An arithmetic median is a value in which there is an
    equal number of values above and below. Knowing this figure should
    help you give a rating to the community you are evaluating.

[^10]: ^.^ According to the 2000 census, the average educational
    attainment among people 25 years and above is 12.4 years of
    schooling.

[^11]: On a national scale, approximately 50 percent of eligible voters
    exercise their right to vote in presidential election years: 49.1
    percent in the 1996 election and 50.4 percent in 2000 (Presidential
    election year figures taken from chart at following web site
    address,
    <http://www.uselectionatlas.org/USPRESIDENT/frametextj.html> ) There
    is a reduced turnout during non-presidential voting years as
    approximately 40 percent vote (Putnam, 2000: 31-47).

[^12]: This is a difficult concept to precisely measure. You or the
    group using this rating system need to be knowledgeable about how
    good a community is in acquiring assistance and resources. These
    government sources include local, state, and Federal. However, more
    government transfer of funds does not necessarily mean higher levels
    of social capital (e.g., welfare payments), and it could actually
    mean increased poverty. Whereas, communities may have high social
    capital when they are able to acquire rural development funds and/or
    USDA strengthening grants, or they are identified as urban
    empowerment zones. The Economic Research Service has a web site that
    depict counties on U.S. maps for a number of government transfer
    indicators: <http://www.ers.usda.gov/briefing/rural/gallery/>