15Introduction to Research Pro.docx

1
5
Introduction to Research Proposals
Julia Irorere
Walden University
Social Work Research: Couple Counseling
This research proposal is going to be focused on the case
study about couple counselling. Marriage is an important
aspect in every community. Many couples who are experiencing
abuse or violence in their relationship choose to stay as a family
(Bradley, Drummey, Gottman, & Gottman, 2014). Couple
counseling projects always involve services such as training,
researching, and offering counseling program so that couples
who have experienced abuses or violence can benefit from and
allow them to have abuse free-relationship. Lesbian, gay,
bisexual and transgender (LGBT) couples are seeking
therapeutic help through engaging the counselors who assist
them with their relationships and issues being faced outside the
relationship, for example, external stigma (Duchame & Kollar,
2012).
Many people choose stay in a relationship due to the desire
to establish, maintain and prolong a life lasting relationship

with someone. Unfortunately, at times not all relationships end
well. As a result, there are many disappointments which have
been witnessed and therefore calls for the services of a marriage
counselor or some form of professional help (Lytle, Vaughan,
Eric, & Schmerler, 2015). Marriage counseling is considered to
be important in the restoration of the relationship and marital
union. This particular research paper is based on looking at
some of the issues related to conflict of same-sex couples. The
research proposal paper is targeted at investigating some of the
challenges of the LGBT couples which usually leads to the
complication in the process of helping them.
Research Questions
i. What are some of the challenges faced by LGBT couples
which usually lead to the complication in the process of helping
them?
ii. What is the effectiveness of the treatment tools in addressing
conflict of LGBT couples?
Research Problem
The challenges and other shortcomings related to the
interventions being provided to the couples. Occasionally,
major factors leading to the shortcomings of the interventions
are related to the tools being utilized in tracking the
improvement as well as the progress of the being tackled for
example communication methods. Couple counseling is always
considered as a common issue within society due to the
presence of various elements which forms the subject of
counseling and therapy. Couples always tend to be unique in
their own ways based on the challenges being faced. This is the
case despite the fact that counseling procedures, skills, and the
tools used for the assessment process might look identical to the
general problems.
Even though conflict among couples can be considered to
be a common issue during the counseling process, handling
LGBT couples requires counselors to pay special attention to
some of the delicate couples. Assisting heterosexual couples in

overcoming conflict is always viewed differently by the
counselors in addressing LGBT couples. The relationships
which involve same-sex couples are associated with many
challenges and most of these challenges are faced during the
interaction with other people, strengths, and vulnerabilities of
people belonging to this sexual category.
Provision of therapeutic counseling and help to the LGBT
couple is important in improving communication process as well
as the relations which need professionalism and proficiency in
psychotherapy which determines the achievement or
disappointment of counseling session (Moller & Andreas,
2015). A large number of counselors are faced with challenges
and difficulties in handling issues faced by same-sex couples.
The whole counseling process and even some stages sometimes
fail to meet the objective of the counseling procedure. Some
difficulties occur during the tracking of communication level
between couples using a scale or a chart. There are situations
whereby improvements can be noted during the early stages of
the counseling process, however, the process might languish
soon after. Maintenance of a progressive development on the
issue which is being resolved therefore causes challenges to the
counselors.
Literature Review
At present, the practice of couple counseling is being
recognized as an important process since it helps in ensuring
that there is the existence of a sound relationship. According to
the analysis report which was presented based on the
countrywide representative samples of 12, 279 females and 10,
402 males of ages 1 to 44 years in the highly populated regions
of United States, more than 50 percent of marriages in the
United States are ending in divorce (Copen, Daniels, Vespa, &
Mosher, 2012). However, studies indicate that relationship
problems can be addressed by involving the process of couple
counseling. In performing an unrestrained research of Gottman
Method Couples Therapy in transforming relationship
contentment amongst 106 gay and lesbian couples, a

measurement of relationship contentment was carried out at five
separate time stages. There was an improvement in the
relationship satisfaction after eleven gatherings of therapies for
both gay males and lesbian couples (Salvatore, Alapaki,
Gottman, Julie, Carrie, & Preciado, 2015; Jennings, Skovholt, &
Lian, 2013).
Couple counseling is important in addressing different
kinds of relationships which are related to dating, engagement,
and marriage. There are a number of issues which can affect the
relationship and some of them are related to sexual issues,
money issues, children and partnering issues, misunderstanding,
and communication disorders among others. Other issues
affecting relationship include cheating, adultery, overworking,
lack of support, and jealousy and this result in the creation of
tension in the family (Copen, Daniels, Vespa, & Mosher, 2012).
In an attempt to help LGBT couples, counselors are always
finding it hard to help the situation because the majority of
these couples enter into therapy with some adverse experiences
with family, friends, clergy, health care providers, and school.
This makes them have deeply internalized negative beliefs
concerning their attraction or identities. Some of these couples
might be confused or puzzled by the efforts being made by the
mental health providers while communicating about some
positive aspects of their experiences as sexual minorities
instead of exclusive focus on the diagnosis. LGBT individuals
are also likely to present for treatment because of various
reasons and in such situations, the use of positive psychology
might prove important in the identification, fostering, and using
client strength within the context of treating more severe
psychopathology (Copen, Daniels, Vespa, & Mosher, 2012).
Challenges faced by LGBT couples which usually lead to the
complication in the process of helping them
Even though there are efforts being made by counselors to
help LGBT couples towards overcoming their issues, there are a
number of challenges which affects the process of incorporating
positive psychology in practice. Clements-Nolle and his

colleagues reported that a high proportion of LGBT individuals
has suicidal thoughts and there it is becoming hard to protect
them from suicidal behavior. Other challenges include sexual
problems, money issues, issues related to parenting and
children, misunderstandings, in-law challenges, and
communication disorders among other issues. There are also
issues brought by variation in the interest of the couples,
adultery, and cheating among others.
Overcoming the existing gap (challenges faced by LGBT
individuals)
The effectiveness of the treatment tools in addressing conflict
of LGBT couples
There are is a huge gap concerning the mechanism or the
methods through which LGBT couples can be helped to
overcome the challenges in the daily lives. It is the
responsibility of the counselor to look into effective methods or
tools which can be used to help these individuals overcome
these challenges. One of the proposed tools which can be relied
upon to help in reducing this gap is relying on the strength of
hope technique to help individuals in overcoming suicidal
thoughts and making individuals have a feeling of being
connected to others. Also, it is important to rely on the LGBT
affiliation which can help in fostering LGBT community. This
is because it helps in creating a positive institution which
influences positive traits like courage and resiliency.
Counselors can also make suggestions of several
opportunities for the couples on the means of addressing the
problems and challenges which hinder their happiness. Creation
of a supportive environment by counselors is important since it
helps in determining, communicating, interpreting some of the
concerns and facilitating positive changes and understanding.
There are also coaching instructions and the professional
feedbacks which can be offered by counselors to the couples
thus helping couples to develop new skills of enhancing their
relationships.
According to Gottman and Silver (2015), about 5 percent

of couples who are on the edge of divorce are seeking marriage
counseling and this, therefore, implies that majority of the
couples are unsure concerning what they should be expecting
from the practice of couple counseling. Based on Gottman
Method Couples Therapy (GMCT), treatment to the LGBT is
based on the evaluation of the relationship; lively medication;
and the prevention of the relapse. The system is based on
assessing and attending to the companionship system, system in
the management of conflict, and collective meaning system
(Salvatore, Alapaki, Gottman, Julie, Carrie, & Preciado, 2015).
Conflict intervention addresses the past conflict of each
couple which might have developed the attachment damages, the
present conflict, and the continuous conflicts. The friendship or
intimacy interventions involve asking the couple to utilize card
decks or the phone app versions. In this system, the sexual
relationship of the partners is well thought-out to be part of the
friendship system and later tackled using Salsa Card Deck.
Shared interventions are achieved through the development of
stress-reducing discussion and the use of card desk known as
Build Rituals of Connections. In this system, couples are
motivated to create rituals that would be important when it is
implemented in their daily lives for example birthdays,
holidays, and anniversaries.
Conclusions
Positive counseling is important towards helping the LGBT
couples overcome their problems. A positive approach is
important since it revolves around putting a focus on the
strengths as well as the framework which can assists physicians
to recognize and commemorate the positive aspect of LGBT life
experiences. Despite the fact that they are faced with many
challenges, counselors are having an exceptional opportunity of
leading the way of creating a more theoretical and empirical-
based knowledge of LGBT strengths. Overcoming issues related
to LGBT counseling requires the adoption of necessary skills to
help couples.

References
Bradley, R. C., Drummey, K., Gottman, J. M., & Gottman, J. S.
(2014). Treating couples who mutually exhibit violence or
aggression: reducing behaviors that show a susceptibility for
violence. Journal of Family Violence, 29, 549-558.
Copen, C. E., Daniels, K., Vespa, J., & Mosher, W. D. (2012).
First Marriages in the United States: Data from the 2006-2010
National Survey of Family Growth. National Health Statistics
Reports. Number 49. National Center for Health Statistics.
Duchame, J. K., & Kollar, M. M. (2012). Does the “marriage
benefit” extend to same-sex union: Evidence from a sample of
married lesbian couples in Massachusetts. Journal of
Homosexuality, 59, 580-591.
Jennings, L., Skovholt, M., & Lian, F. (2013). "Master
therapists: Explorations of expertise." The developing
practitioner: Growth and stagnation of therapists and
counselors. New York, NY: Routledge.
Lytle, M. C., Vaughan, M. D., Eric, M. R., & Schmerler, L. D.
(2015). Working with LGBT Individuals: Incorporating Positive
Psychology into Training and Practice. Psychol Sex Orientat
Gend Divers, 1 (4), 335-347.
Moller, N., & Andreas, V. (2015). Defining infidelity in
research and couple counseling: A qualitative study. Journal of
sex & marital therapy, 41 (5), 487-497.
Salvatore, G., Alapaki, Y., Gottman, J., Julie, G., Carrie, C., &
Preciado, M. (2015). Results of Gottman method couples
therapy with gay and lesbian couples. Journal of Marital and
Family Therapy, 1-11.
The Three-Tier Model: How
Helping Occurs in Urban,
Poor Communities

Sudhir Alladi Venkatesh
Harvard University
The organization of provider-client relations in helping
processes within urban,
poor communities has shifted in accordance with structural
shifts in large, American
inner cities in the last 30 years. I argue that this set of relations
is best understood
as a three-tier structure, with each tier composed of networks of
individuals, organi-
zations, and social groups that can be differentiated by various
factors, including
size and capacity and community relations. The three-tier model
is a useful heuristic
both to understand contemporary patterns of service delivery
and to design social
policies to strengthen the social fabric of urban, poor
communities.
In the 1980s, resurgent academic interest in American inner
cities led
to a flurry of studies concerning the predicament of the urban
poor.
With some notable exceptions, most scholars directed their
attention
to macrosocial factors causing the decline of central cities.' An
im-
portant gap remains in our understanding of American cities,
one
that concerns the consequences of social structural poverty for
the
everyday life experiences of those who reside within urban,
poor com-
munities. Though we are aware of the deleterious effects of

unemploy-
ment, gang activity, crime, drugs, and so on, we know relatively
little
about the ways in which the poor make ends meet in such
conditions.
For example, if they cannot rely on the labor market for income,
how
do they fulfill their daily needs? In this article, I hope to shed
light
on one such area that remains underexplored: how helping
occurs
within urban communities that are economically depressed and
that
Social Service Review (December 1997).
© 1997 by The University of Chicago. All rights i
0037-7961/97/7104-0003$02.00
Levels of Community Service 575
lack sufficient public and private institutional resources. In
using the
term "helping," I refer to the myriad ways in which individuals,
groups,
and organizations interact to provide assistance, support, and
re-
sources to one another. By posing the question in this way, I
want to
direct attention to the ways in which helping is as much a
community
process, one with an identifiable structure and organization, as
it is an
exchange between two individual parties.

The study of coping and helping behaviors on the community
level
is a broad field of interest that subsumes many types of actual
behav-
iors. In her seminal work. All Our Kin, Carol Stack described in
great
detail the social networks and support mechanisms that enabled
resi-
dents of a poor, urban community to achieve day-to-day
stability.̂
Kathryn Edin, in a similar vein, analyzed the survival strategies
of
female welfare recipients whose needs outpace their public
assistance
payments and subsidies.̂ To complement these and other such
studies,
I address another specific aspect of helping in urban, poor
communi-
ties, one that has been given less attention; namely, the social
relations
and patterns of interaction among residents and community
organiza-
tions that have formed through the delivery of social services.
Currently, we have a limited understanding of how urban
communities
are socially organized to fulfill such basic needs as social
service delivery.
Consider the expressed frustrations on the part of actors who
design,
implement, fund, and evaluate social policies that affect the
urban poor.
Many are searching for more effective ways to redirect
resources to the
urban poor and strengthen their communities.* There are several
specific

issues that recur in these cries: significant segments of the
urban poor
seem not to be participating in policies and programs that are
specifically
designed to reach their communities; funding—under private
and public
auspices—has not had prolonged effects, that is, after the
program or
initiative is completed; and philanthropy and government
assistance is
unable to generate community-level benefits, that is, beyond the
level of
particular individuals and households. Common to these
concerns is the
belief that the real goal is to help communities overall, not just
a select
few who live and provide resources there.
Part of the inability to effect communitywide change derives
from
the particular relationship that social policy actors have
engendered
with urban poor communities. Those actors involved in
foundation
and government-sponsored initiatives—either through an
advisory or
technical assistance capacity or through direct receipt of
funds—have
circumscribed contact with (and knowledge about) the
communities
they represent. Generally, they are in the elite class of
community
institutions (see section titled "The Elite Tier"). They hold
influential
positions in their communities and can affect how resources are
distrib-

uted to different groups and areas. Because of factors that I
address
below, this elite stratum has grown detached from many sectors
of the
576 Social Service Review
population. Not only are they unable to estabhsh meaningful
contact
with large numbers of residents, but they also find themselves
unable
to respond to the range of needs, priorities, and demands of
their
respective communities. Nevertheless, they are often the only
commu-
nity representatives who are called on by foundations and
govern-
ments when devising and implementing social policies that wiil
affect
poor communities. Other actors, who may help fill the gap
because
of their contacts with neglected community sectors or their
specific
experience and expertise, are left out altogether.
To redress this myopia and imbalance and to enable social
policy
to apply its resources to poor communities more effectively, I
argue
that a fundamental revision of our current approach to
community
building is necessary. The reliance on a limited number of
community
institutions in our policy efforts needs to be replaced by a more

encom-
passing vision of community social organization that takes into
account
the limited, albeit important, contributions of this elite sector
and the
potential utility of a range of other institutions and "helpers"
who are
in contact with marginal and neglected community
constituencies. A
social policy strategy that can capitalize on this diversity, as
opposed
to exclusive reliance on a well-known but isolated set of elite
institu-
tions, will have a better chance of strengthening the general
function-
ing of a community.
This article offers a conceptual framework—the three-tier struc-
ture—that can facilitate more responsive social policy
development in
relation to urban poor communities. The organization of
provider-
client relationships in helping processes within large American
inner
cities can be characterized as three tiered, with each tier
composed of
groupings of individuals, organizations, or social groups that
can be
differentiated by various factors, including size and capacity
and rela-
tions with their community.'' By employing the three-tier
conceptual
framework, one can bring into sharper relief aspects of the
decision-
making process by which residents choose (or do not choose) to
seek

out a particular individual, group, or institution for assistance;
by
which providers attempt (or do not attempt) outreach to a
particular
clientele for social service delivery; and by which informal
(i.e., nonin-
stitutional) avenues supplement or replace a formal means of
provid-
ing assistance. I also argue that the three-tier structure can be a
useful
heuristic for formulating public policy. That is, the model can
serve
as a framework for persons and organizations that seek to
strengthen
community capacities through social policy development.
Data and the Setting
The data for this article are taken from my ethnographic
observations
of social life in several urban poor communities in Chicago, the
major-
ity of which are poor and composed of either Latino or African-
American populations. For 4 years I conducted participant
observa-
tions, systematically observing the ways in which the urban
poor en-
gage in helping and in the delivery of various human services.
At times
I employed formal interview techniques, carrying a tape
recorder and

asking staff members, community stakeholders, and individual
resi-
dents a standard protocol of questions. Generally, however, I
would
try to observe actual interactions and document actual instances
of
helping that occurred. For example, I attended recreational
leagues
sponsored by city street gangs, I volunteered at an arts and
crafts
workshop held in the back room of a small storefront church, I
rode
along with a police officer who spent his off-duty hours
monitoring
neighborhood crime, and I attended community meetings of
service
providers who planned strategies to overcome obstacles such as
gang
boundaries. Unless indicated, the excerpts that I have included
are
taken from casual conversations with institutional
representatives,
street gang members, and so on. Other information is taken from
questionnaires.
Although much of the data are ethnographic, an argument can
be
made for the generality of the findings and the potential
usefulness
of Chicago-specific dynamics for other metropolitan regions.
Other
researchers have documented forms of coping and resident-
institution
relations similar to those I found in Chicago.̂ However, none of
these
approaches systematically modeled the organization of social

support
processes on a community level. Instead, one can find incidents
of
support and helping that resemble the cases that I report.
Perhaps
the most important factor that substantiates the generalizability
of my
findings is the common predicament faced by cities across the
United
States: large manufacturing industries have departed and
nonmenial
wage labor has not been replenished; communities perceive
height-
ened social unrest and violent criminal activity; city budgets are
lower
and municipal governments are asked to do more with less; and
nu-
merous families have chosen to live outside of the central city,
commut-
ing to jobs and commercial establishments within metropolitan
bound-
aries.̂ These dynamics are occurring not only in the "Rust Belt"
corridor but also in cities such as Los Angeles, Denver, and San
Francisco.®
The Three Tiers of Helping
A "tier" can be understood as a stratum of actors delivering
social
services within an agreed on geographic space, such as a
community
or neighborhood. The tier category does not refer to any
necessary
degree of familiarity; that is, all of the actors in a particular tier
need
not know of one another in order to be considered as belonging
to

that tier. Neither are tier boundaries so impermeable that
absolutely no
intercourse exists among actors within different tiers.
Nevertheless, in
practice, there exist patterns of inclusion and exclusion that
warrant
consideration of tier-specific communication and collaboration.
The first tier of providers, the "elite tier," includes
organizations
that have established themselves within their communities
through
the continuous provision of programming, resources, and
assistance
to individuals and households. The second tier, "midsized and
flexible
providers," is composed of organizations that do not have a
noteworthy
history of service provision in a community, that are smaller in
size
or capacity than those in the first tier, or that are not service
providers
but are engaged in helping to fulfill a void in the community.
Finally,
the third tier, "grassroots helpers," includes a diverse array of
individu-
als and organizations who operate on a geographically restricted
basis
and whose success and longevity are a function of their ability
to
cultivate highly personal relationships with their clientele.

The tiers can be distinguished along four dimensions. Eormality
re-
fers to both the status of the actor who delivers the service and
the
mode of delivery. With regard to status, an actor may be
considered
a formal provider if the delivery is conducted under the
auspices of
an organized structure—the organization requires all service
delivery
to be sanctioned and to follow stipulated guidelines. If, for
example,
a medical doctor employed by a hospital walks around a
neighborhood
alone offering treatment during her off-duty hours, she is not a
"for-
mal" provider. Further, the actual delivery of the service is
formal to
the degree that it is expected (i.e., both recurrent and predicted)
and
falls under some set of understood—legal or agreed on—
guidelines.
If the medical doctor told community residents that she would
be
walking around the neighborhood each week and delivering X,
Y, and
Z services, the mode of delivery would be formal (although the
auspice
is not). If she simply enjoyed walking through the community
and
delivering services at her whim, then the mode of delivery
would be
informal (irrespective of whether the auspice was formal, i.e.,
whether
or not she represented her employee). In my discussion of tiers,

I will
delineate whether formality is being invoked in the delivery
process
or the auspice under which service delivery is conducted.
The second dimension is community relations. A provider ofa
service
may have a close relationship to a particular group of residents
but
have less exposure—what I refer to as "social distance"—to
another
set of individuals. To take an obvious example, an employment
agency
may not be in close contact with the nonworking residents. This
dimen-
sion is significant because each tier can be characterized by its
relation-
ship with different sectors of the residential population as well
as by
the types of relationships that it forms with these sectors.
Attributes
of relationship include degree of social distance to population
sectors
as well as "flexibility," which is the ability to alter delivery
based on
changing constituent needs and community dynamics.
The third dimension, social networks, refers to the similar types
of
social relations shared by actors in each tier. This dimension is
not

meant to imply that all actors of a particular tier interact only
with
those in the same tier. By contrast, any two particular
organizations,
in two different tiers, may share a collaborative partner or may
work
with one another on occasion. Instead, social networks are an
attribute
ofthe tier in general. That is, patterns of association,
communication,
and collaboration as well as the forms of relationships with
sources of
fiscal support will be structured differently and uniquely in each
tier.
The fourth and final dimension is size and capacity. Size can
refer to
staffing, budgets, and number of services offered whereas
capacity
refers to the number of individuals and households served.
Two Case Studies
The Crenshaw community and the Hamilton Club.—The
Hamilton Club
is a multipurpose social service agency whose clients come
from a large
public housing development community on Chicago's South
Side. The
club is a two-story structure with a large gymnasium, a
computer
center with 20 personal computers, arts and crafts facilities,
video
equipment, and access to van and bus transportation. The club is
a
branch of a larger, national organization and is considered an

"experi-
mental" site because its client pool comes from a public housing
com-
munity that has the highest crime rate in the city and that
experiences
marginal ties with mainstream institutions (96% of the adult
popula-
tion is unemployed and 92% of the heads of household report
receipt
of public assistance; 66% of the residents are under 20 years of
age,
and the local high school dropout rate exceeds 50%).̂
During the first year of its tenure, the Hamilton Club focused
pri-
marily on member recruitment and community outreach by
providing
recreational, educational, and social activities for children and
youth—
who were its ostensible target population—and for young adults
and
elder residents. For the first 18 months, attendance rates among
the
children and youth were fairly low, and adults and senior
citizens
participated sporadically. The club was continually burglarized,
its
windows were broken from stray bullets of local street gangs,
and the
staff were repeatedly harassed, physically and verbally, by local
youth.
Additional difficulties arose for the club because many
residents chose
to participate in the recreational leagues that were sponsored by
the
local street gangs rather than by the club. Events that the club

orga-
nized were not well attended, whereas similar events sponsored
by
gangs overflowed with community residents.
To respond to the low levels of use, the director held a series of
community forums for families to express their concerns and
desires.
He found that many factors contributed to low resident
involvement.
In addition to residents' inability to pay membership dues,
social activi-
ties were not attractive to youth and young adults who were too
busy
searching for work. Residents refrained from visiting the club in
the
late afternoon and evenings due to the violent shootings and
gang
activity that had become prevalent in the last few years—the
club was
located at the territorial boundary of two rival gangs. The
director
also learned that the gang leaders and the leaders of the local
tenant
organizations had extraordinary influence on the interaction
between
the residents and the club. The local gang leaders could prevent
the
majority of neighborhood youth from attending the club, and
several
women who were on the local tenants' management committee

could
similarly keep the adult population from participating in club-
spon-
sored events.
To increase membership and participation rates, the director
made
several changes that differed from the club's stated rules and
regula-
tions. Social activities were temporarily discarded and a jobs
program
was instituted in which placement, training, and education were
of-
fered to younger and middle-aged adults. Businesses were
contacted
and bi-weekly recruitment sessions enabled residents to meet
prospec-
tive employers. More important for the residents, the director
opened
the club for informal economic activity. The parking lot was
trans-
formed into a garage for local mechanics who worked on
residents'
cars; the kitchen was made available to individuals selling
prepackaged
lunches and dinners, as well as sundry items; women who made
cloth-
ing and jewelry were given access to the club to sell their
wares; a
second-floor room was made into a barbershop and beauty
salon; and
residents were allowed to host weekend dance parties, netting
several
thousand dollars each week by charging admission and selling
food.

The director also helped to form a truce among the rival gangs,
a
challenge the police did not accept. He promised the gang
leaders use
of the club for their meetings (and weekend parties) in exchange
for
an agreement not to engage in violent activity, which included
drug
distribution and gang recruitment, near the club. Finally, the
director
placed the leaders of the local tenant organizations on the club's
pay-
roll. He acknowledged the authority that these women held in
commu-
nity affairs and decided to harness their power for his own
benefit
rather than usurp it.
The residents applauded the director's new steps at improving
com-
munity relations. Almost immediately the membership and
participa-
tion rates grew, outreach and advertising became easier to
conduct,
and, most important, the violence and vandalism almost
disappeared.
Now, instead of posting signs on the club's window or speaking
ran-
domly to residents, the director went directly through the local
infor-
mal channels of communication; the four tenant management
leaders

and the three gang leaders were told, and these leaders told all
of the
households in their respective buildings. The informal networks
of
leadership and authority were not only used to convey club
activities,
they were also avenues by which the club staff learned about
commu-
nity concerns. For example, residents often skipped medical
appoint-
ments because of lack of transportation or money for public
transpor-
tation. Hearing of this, the club sponsored free vaccinations and
monthly checkups by local health providers.
The efforts of the club to modify its own approach, work within
the local networks and authority structures, and accept many of
the
illegitimate activities of the residents and gangs has had
constructive
and destructive consequences. Club membership has continued
to
grow and its status has solidified within the community.
However, in
doing so, the club has deviated from (and in some cases
transgressed)
organizational and legal codes of conduct. Children and adults
feel
much safer when walking to the club and around the community
in
general; however, to ensure this safety, the director has made
compro-
mises with local street gangs. Such compromises produced
unintended
consequences. Many of the residents chastised the director,

accusing
him of allowing gang members to "take over" the club, some
parents
allow their children to participate in only club-sponsored field
trips
and activities that take place outside of the community, and
others
have refused to allow their children to become involved in any
activity
held at the club. Finally, according to some club staff memliers,
the
effective delivery of services has become too dependent on the
local
tenant and gang leaders' willingness to transmit information;
thus,
residents who are not in good standing with these two groups
may
be omitted effectively from communication channels and
therefore
unaware of club activities and programs.
Ms. Maggie Madden and friends. — Ms. Maggie Madden and
her
friends live in a 4 x 6 block area in Washington Park. Her
neighbor-
hood contains mostly single-family homes, with several three-
story
apartment buildings—some habitable, others abandoned—inter-
spersed throughout the area. Like other parts of Washington
Park,
the majority of residents work irregularly, if at all. In the
autumn of
1992, Ms. Madden and her friends formed the 22d St.
Neighborhood
Block Club. Their primary motivation was to organize after-
school

social and recreational activities for their children. There was a
Youth
Center nearby that offered programs for the neighborhood
youth.
The center was a local chapter of a nationwide social service
organiza-
tion that had been involved in Washington Park for nearly a
century.
The members of Ms. Madden's block club refused to patronize
the
center because its staff routinely revoked the privileges of their
chil-
dren for several weeks or longer if they fought, used foul
language,
or threw food. Ms. Madden believed that the staff was far too
strict.
Moreover, the majority of staff members were not community
resi-
dents and, according to Ms. Madden, lacked an adequate
understand-
ing of residents' everyday needs and concerns.
The poor relations with the Youth Center presented a problem
for
parents. Many worked in the late afternoons at domestic jobs
outside
of their community, and the center served as an inexpensive
day-care
service for them (one far less costly than an in-house babysitter
or a
formal day-care provider). When they were unable to send their

chil-
dren to the center after school, parents simply left them at home
alone. However, this was an unacceptable compromise because,
when
left alone, their children would wander through abandoned
buildings
or get hurt when playing in empty lots.
The parents approached a local day-care center and tried to
negoti-
ate a monthly rate cheaper than the usual fee. Unable to do so,
they
went back to the Youth Center; in exchange for reinstituting
their
childrens' membership privileges, parents promised to speak
with their
children regarding inappropriate behavior and language. They
also
offered to perform volunteer work at the Youth Center for
several
hours each week. However, the director of the Youth Center
stood
firm and told the parents that negotiation was not possible. At a
later
date, I asked the director why a settlement could not be reached.
He
answered that many of the children in question were
"troublemakers"
and it would actually be better for the Youth Center (as well as
for the
"good kids") if the troublemakers did not participate in their
programs.
Although he was unhappy that the Youth Center's programming
was
only reaching a very select group of the community's youth
(which

he estimated to be 25%), he argued that his organization could
"not
take a chance" with the troublemakers.
Some of the parents empathized with the director's viewpoint
but
argued against his suggestion that counseling was the solution
to the
problems the troublemakers were causing; instead, parents
argued,
the director needed to understand that this community had a
variety
of problems, including poverty and inadequate schools and
services,
that could not be remedied with psychological counseling.
The residents decided to look for other people and organizations
that might be able to help them. Ms. Madden's brother had
received
some training at a local vocational school located in the
community.
The school occupied a small three-story structure with a large
enclosed
backyard. Ms. Madden asked the director of the school if the
22d St.
Neighborhood Block Club could rent the backyard for use as a
temporary after-school day-care center. Though somewhat
hesitant,
the director decided to help Ms. Madden's block club because of
the
number of parents who were working and who might have had
to
quit and turn to public assistance because of a lack of adequate
day care.

The parents decided that a common fund would be started, to
which
each parent contributed money, in order to hire two part-time
day-
care assistants. They contacted several employment agencies,
but the
prices were too high. Instead, they knew many mothers who
were
currently receiving public assistance but who would welcome
addi-
tional income. They hired three such women to provide care in
the
after-school hours; whenever possible, Ms. Madden and her
friends
also volunteered their time. The 22d St. Neighborhood Block
Club
approached local grocery stores, many of which agreed to
donate soft
drinks and food for the children. They called local museums and
arranged for free tickets and tours. Finally, they obtained office
sup-
plies as well as low-interest loans from a storefront church for
small
purchases.
The day-care center ran successfully for nearly 18 months until
the
director of the vocational school closed it down because of
predictable
legal and insurance problems. Both Ms. Madden and the
director
began searching for another place to house their informal day-
care

center. In the interim, the parents decided not to return to the
Youth
Center and chose to allow their children to remain home for the
summer. The choice was a difficult one for them. Without a
place to
gather, the children are exposed to street crime, gang activity,
and
the pressures from other peers to get involved in these
activities.
Numerous examples can be given of relatively spontaneous and
informal assistance on the part of residents and organizations in
urban,
poor communities throughout America. I have chosen to include
the
above two examples because they help illustrate the general
process
by which urban, poor residents assist one another and because
they
challenge some of our strongest beliefs regarding social
organization
and service provision among the urban poor. For example, the
most
prominent organizations, that is, those with the largest budgets,
man-
power, and national prestige, may have only a limited reach
within
the residential population. Youth gangs, depicted in the popular
press
as solely "criminal" organizations, may, because of their wealth
and
local power, also act as service providers. In addition, the above
two
examples provide a good springboard for a more in-depth
consider-
ation of the three tiers of service providers.

The Elite Tier
Organizations within the first tier carry recognizable names,
both to
the targeted recipient population and to the public at large. In
some
cases, they may have deep, historical roots in the community.
Especially
for those that have remained at the forefront of community-
based
service delivery for long periods, their presence is the outcome
of
successful struggle and adaptation. Changing political climates,
shift-
ing availability of public and private resources, and
deteriorating com-
munities raise unpredictable obstacles that have to be overcome
in
order for these organizations to survive, a feat that produces
both
stature and a sense of commitment to the community. Of the
organiza-
tions that exemplify this strength and reliance, several have
achieved
a nationwide presence. These include the Young Men's
Christian Asso-
ciation (YMCA), the National Urban League, and the A.M.E.
Church.
Others have established a prominent identity on a local level,
such as
the Amer-I-Can program—an important community resource

that
trains individuals whose occupations place them in contact with
trou-
bled juveniles.'"
Size and Capacity
Irrespective of their length of tenure or the particular way in
which
they assist their constituents, these organizations share some
basic
attributes that qualify them for elite tier placement. I have
suggested
that at the core of the elite tier are organizations that can persist
in the face of changing circumstances. This "survival strategy,"
to
paraphrase Stack, is at bottom a reflection of size and capacity.''
First-
tier organizations generally have large budgets and staffs. On
the one
hand, their size is a function of their capacity to generate
continued
funding. With adequate, and at times extensive, training in grant
and
proposal writing, first-tier providers can continually buttress
endow-
ments and fill coffers. On the other hand, their capacity is
enhanced
by their size. Larger staffs enable them to devote the necessary
energy
and time to remaining fiscally sound. For some, additional
strength
derives from affiliation with larger citywide and national
corporate
structures. Examples include the Centers for New Horizons in
Chicago

and the Boys and Girls Clubs of America. Such organizations
generally
have a developed understanding of available funding streams
and pos-
sess both the knowledge and the organizational capacity to
respond
to requests for proposals in a timely and informed manner.
Especially
within contexts of limited institutional development—where
there is
a dearth of public and private institutions providing services
within
the community—the continuity of first-tier organizations
becomes
even more noteworthy, thus enhancing their stature in the public
eye.'2
Social Networks
In the public role of first-tier organizations we see an important
con-
nection between size and capacity and the second dimension of
tier
placement, social networks. A strong public identity can become
an
important means by which organizations remain within the first
tier.
The impoverished state of the communities they serve is the
source
of considerable popular discussion because of the attention paid
by

the media, intellectuals, and policy makers. Charitable,
philanthropic,
and government organizations direct their resources to first-tier
pro-
viders because of their demonstrated survivability and public
presence,
thus placing them at an obvious advantage relative to their
competi-
tors. For example, they are often the first point of contact by
local,
state, and federal initiatives that seek to disperse funds or that
wish to
test new initiatives and programs. They may be chosen to
represent
the communities they serve in media and public forums, to serve
on
development boards and collaborative projects with other
prominent
actors, and they may be asked to provide formal or informal
evalua-
tions of other service providers in their communities. In each of
these
roles, organizations in the first tier build their communication
net-
works. The increases in social capital translate into a greater
potential
growth and service delivery, which in turn can raise their public
stat-
ure, potentially expanding their social networks, and so on.
Community Relations
Paradoxically, the stature, security, and growth of first-tier
organiza-
tions have been enhanced by the deterioration of the
communities

they serve, while their actual relationships with their
constituents have
been adversely affected by the increased "social isolation" of
the urban
poor from many mainstream institutions.'^ This introduces the
third
dimension of tier placement, namely, community relations.
First-tier
providers generally possess a stable recipient base. This
stability is not
altogether surprising since they command significant resources
and
are an integral part of the social fabric of their respective
communities.
When needed or pressured to do so, first-tier organizations will
suc-
cessfully attract new members and patrons. They may employ
gradu-
ates of their programs as role models to recruit new participants
or
conduct volunteer work, thus creating a powerful sense of
historical
continuity, or they may increase their outreach and advertising
efforts
to underserved neighborhoods or neglected social groups.
Barring
exogenous pressures, first-tier providers will be content with
the size
and attributes of their client pool; thus, decisions to conduct
outreach,
which can carry certain risks, are weighed against the stability
of the
present clientele.
In urban, poor communities in Chicago, the social distance
between

first-tier service providers and their constituencies has
increased. This
is part of a general development, best captured by William
Julius
Wilson in his notion of "social isolation." Wilson has argued
that the
urban poor—both residents and their community institutions—
have suffered a loss of meaningful contact with the
mainstream.'*
In the context of social service delivery, first-tier organizations
that
for many years succeeded in providing a diverse array of social
services have lost some of their influence and contact with
commu-
nity residents.'^
In other cases, first-tier providers have chosen not to broaden
their
sphere of contact within their communities, writing off sectors
of the
local population as potential recipients of their services. In my
inter-
views with a dozen leaders of prominent Chicago service
agencies,
including Centers for New Horizons, the Abraham Lincoln
Center,
Firman House, and the Chicago Area Project, they offered
various
explanations for the lack of concerted organizational outreach.
Some
believed that their existing client pool represented the most

promising
sector of the community's youth, and reaching out to the
"troubled"
segments was too great a risk. Others argued that most of the
youth
in the community required comprehensive treatment that
exceeded
the capacities of their organizations. Still others cited the need
to satisfy
the requirements of funding sources as a motivation for
avoiding risk
taking and maintaining their status quo.'^
Fwrnality
The final dimension of the first tier is formality. Service
delivery by
first-tier organizations is generally quite formal, both in terms
of aus-
pice and in the actual mode of delivery. Once again, this is not
entirely
unpredictable given two of the other dimensions that define the
first
tier: size and capacity and social networks. For a first-tier
organization,
the correlate of larger staff and more programming and
resources is
greater accountability. First-tier providers will not engage in
relations
with their communities that contravene their bylaws and
procedures.
Community relations based on mutual benefit or interactions
based
on personal ties are not precluded, but they do conflict with the
formal
rules of the organization and hinder effective monitoring and

account-
ability. The outcome of this formality is that the provider-
client, help-
er-helpee relationship dominates, and the auspice under which
the
service is provided is largely formal and mediated through these
imper-
sonal social roles. This is not to suggest the possibility that in
their
relations with other organizations, funders, and policy makers,
first-
tier actors do not communicate and interact on a more personal
and
less formal manner.
Greater accountability translates into increased responsibility to
monitor use of funds, progress, effectiveness of delivery,
programs
and resources, staff behavior, and so forth. These exigencies
foster
organizational rigidity. There are more levels of approval before
a
program can be implemented or services delivered. The program
or
service in question must adhere to the mission and objectives of
the
organization. Such steps require deliberation, discussion, and
consen-
sus, all of which make demands on organizational resources.
Hence,
there is a high degree of predictability in the type, level, and

manner
of service delivery, but the capacity to provide a service or
good on
demand and the ability to adapt rapidly to changing
circumstances
are reduced.
Midsized and Flexible Providers
The second tier of providers is perhaps the most difficult tier to
charac-
terize because of its diversity. In general, the tier is composed
of
organizations that are responding to an unfulfilled community
need
for a specific service, and that do so either by shifting their
staffing,
programming, and resources or by shifting their mode of
community
engagement. As indicated above, in some cases, second-tier
organiza-
tions may often not be service provides per se; instead, their
staff may
have chosen to devote or redirect the organization's resources in
order
to provide the service in demand.
Size and Capacity
Size and capacity are often criteria by which second-tier
providers can
be distinguished from their elite counterparts. Second-tier
organiza-
tions will have fewer clients, a smaller or nonexistent
endownment,
small staff sizes, and offer only a modest set of programs and

services.
They may only be able to sustain current levels of growth, as
opposed
to expanding to meet community demands. The latter requires
an
ability to dedicate internal resources to organizational growth
that may
not be possible given budgetary and manpower constraints.
Some
second-tier members will have some experience in grant
procurement,
understand the ins and outs of proposal development, and
possess ties
to local foundations. For all these reasons, such organizations
qualify
as midsized as opposed to elite, and thus they are placed in the
sec-
ond tier.
The Hamilton Club illustrates that the size of an organization,
con-
sidered apart from other dimensions, is not necessarily a
reliable indi-
cator of its tier placement. The club is a member ofa larger
nationwide
youth social service agency that for the last 3 decades has been
listed
among the 20 largest nonprofit, charitable organizations in the
coun-
try. Although its own board of directors does not lend active
support—
through fundraising or overseeing the progress of staff and
fiscal sta-
tus—it has at its disposal the resources of its parent
organization.
Despite this national affiliation, the Hamilton Club is not a

first-tier
service provider in its community. Its other tier dimensions help
ex-
plain this distinction.
Community Relations
The first defining dimension is community relations. The
Hamilton Club
is relatively new to the community it serves (the Crenshaw
public housing
development); the club was begun in 1991, whereas the housing
develop-
ment was built after the Second World War. As I noted above,
the club
made important staff and programming adjustments in order to
establish
itself within the community. These adaptations were not made
by previ-
ous social service providers, whose short tenure in Crenshaw
reflected
an unwillingness to listen and effectively respond to resident
needs. By
opening up the club to the local gangs, intervening directly to
alleviate
antagonisms between gangs and residents, and providing space
and re-
sources for senior citizens, the club made a commitment to
serve sectors
of the community that had hitherto been ignored.
The willingness to reach out to neglected sectors of the

community
is an important aspect of community relations that defines the
second
tier. The above-mentioned widening social distance is smaller
for the
second tier because of efforts to contact marginalized social
groups
and neglected populations. Arguably, the most neglected sector
of
contemporary impoverished communities is troubled youth—
some of
whom are in street gangs while others may simply be
delinquent, have
learning difficulties, or experience much domestic instability.
Another
important sector of the urban poor that is not actively served is
the
elderly. Although all the directors emphasized the needs of
"troubled
youth," nine out of the 10 with whom I spoke stated that they
are
continually reminded by their elder patrons that there are
limited
resources and social services for seniors.
A second attribute of community relations that defines the
second
tier is flexibility, both in terms of deploying organizational
resources
and in responding to community-initiated demands and
concerns.
There are two types of second-tier organizations that evidence
this type
of flexibility. The first is organizations that are not service
providers per
se but that act in this capacity to fill a void in the community.

The
vocational school that responded to Ms. Madden's block club's
needs
for day care is a good example. It is important to note that the
void
in Ms. Madden's community was not a lack of day care (there
were
two other day-care centers in the area) but a lack of affordable
day
care and a local first-tier provider (the YMCA) that did not
respond
to their needs. Other examples of organizations that have
suspended
their mission, shifted their organizational direction, or made
key ad-
justments in resource allocation in order to respond to local
exigencies
are a church that makes its resources available to its local
congregation,
a beauty salon that provides short-term emergency loans to local
resi-
dents because formal lending institutions deem them too risky,
and a
political advocacy organization that organizes "community
cleanup"
activities because of poor sanitation services.'"
The other kind of second-tier organization is a service provider
that
adjusts to local dynamics. The Little Village Youth Center
serves a
predominandy Spanish-speaking, mixed-income, though largely

poor,
Chicago community. Similar to the director of the Hamilton
Club, the
Little Village Youth Center director learned that residents did
not
have space and resources to meet and address a set of zoning
changes
that were being proposed by the City Council. He offered
administra-
tive support and other organization resources, even though the
board
of directors prohibited it. Moreover, he assessed the programs
in the
center that were being underused and redirected staff and other
re-
sources to assist these residents. He notes that other service
providers,
many of whom were bigger and had more resources, refused to
cooper-
ate. Over time, his adaptations were responsible "for our
success, be-
cause these parents are sending their kids to my place and not
the
other ones down the road."
The experiences of both the Little Village Youth Center and the
Hamilton Club point to the importance of community dynamics
in
defining the second tier and distinguishing it from the first tier.
With
increased size, the ability of a provider to make quick
organizational
changes is reduced. This is a significant problem for first-tier
actors
in their attempts to become more in touch with their community.
The

adaptations made by the club and the youth center would not be
easy
for those in the first tier, who must weigh the risks of such
flexibility
with a more conservative posture that they feel ensures
continuous
and smooth operation.
Social Networks
This level of commitment to readily respond to community
dynamics
can carry consequences for relations with others in tbe provider
com-
munity—the social networks dimension. By altering
programming,
outreach, or interactions with local resident constituencies, an
organi-
zation may grow apart from other first-tier organizations that
are not
only unwilling to adopt such strategies but that may frown on
those
who do. In Chicago's Uptown-Edgewater community, a large
social
service agency with established ties to Chicago philanthropies
became
increasingly involved in direct mediation of local etbnic-based
gang
conflicts. A senior staff member argued that as their conflict
resolution
efforts accelerated, their relations with the service provider
community
concomitantly worsened: "Once we changed our approach and
tried
to conduct direct intervention into basic problems of gangs,
crime,

drugs—that sort of thing—we were seen in a different light. We
felt
as though we were shaking the boat by trying new things. I'm
not
saying [that] our friends were hostile to us, but they did take
our
new direction with some skepticism, and the distance between
us has
grown." A similar transformation has taken place in the Greater
Grand
Boulevard community where second-tier organizations have had
a
difficult time working with first-tier agencies. Their outreach to
mar-
ginal social groups and "less stable" recipients, to borrow the
words
of the Hamilton Club director, caused rifts and created
antagonisms.
For example, when I spoke with many first-tier providers in the
area,
nearly all of them expressed the opinion that the Hamilton
Club's
novel programming and outreach strategies were mistakes in the
long term.'^
The experiences of agencies in Uptown-Edgewater and Greater
Grand Boulevard point to a central problem for organizations
that
inhabit the second tier, namely, demonstrating a responsive
approach
to the needs of their constituents while maintaining an effective

rela-
tionship with first-tier providers who may have great influence
over
resources provided to the community. On the one hand, making
ad-
justments in order to reach marginalized individuals and groups
and
providing those programs for which residents express great
demand
can increase the effectiveness of any community-based service
pro-
vider. On the other hand, any organization's stature will be
partly a
function of its relationships with other community institutions.
An
organization's practices can be beneficial for the constituency
being
served while engendering unforeseen consequences for
relationships
with other organizations in the social service field.
Formality
The final dimension that defines the second tier is formality.
Unlike
the first tier, there is a greater use of and reliance on personal
relation-
ships that do not completely conform to the impersonal
provider-
client or helper-helpee roles. One sees both impersonal and
personal
means of relating to clients as well as to other providers, for
example,
collaboration is achieved by a phone call and promise to share
re-
sources and never reaches a contractual agreement or appears in

fiscal
records. Generally, the delivery of services occurs within a
formal
structure (because the second tier is composed of organized and
char-
tered entities), but the mode of delivery can be spontaneous,
rely on
personal communication, and may never escalate to a formal
program
offering. This is most evident in the delivery of services to
client groups
that either do not have history of formal association with the
service
provider community or who do not seek to initiate or sustain
formal
relations with institutions. In such situations, making the
delivery of
services formal is almost impossible. A social service agency in
the
Washington Park community wanted to find various health and
social
services for the unemployed, middle-aged men who spent their
time
on street corners and in nearby parking lots. The director argued
tbat successful programming with this targeted population
necessitates
"incredible flexibility. We just set aside a fixed amount of
money and
staff. And day-to-day, we have to see what these men need,
what they'll
get involved in. We treat them individually, which is harder, but

it's
the best way because many of them are here today and gone
tomorrow.
It's really hard to tell you today what we're going to do
tomorrow for
these guys. Come back tomorrow!"
Even witb less marginal social groups, second-tier organizations
evi-
dence a blend of personal and impersonal relations. This is so
because
this tier is at a structural disadvantage in comparison with first-
tier
agencies, which may be able to provide more attractive and
efficient
services. Second-tier organizations will depend on the
friendships
and trust that they have developed with their clients, if they
elevate
these arrangements to a purely formal status, they alter the
founda-
tion of their relationships and risk a decrease in attendance and
participation.
Grassroots Helpers
Individuals, social groups, and organizations compose the third
tier
of service providers, often thought of as organizations and
individuals
operating at the "grassroots." The presence of individuals and
social
groups—as opposed to organizations alone—that deliver a
particular
service or fulfill a community need is itself a defining attribute
of the
third tier. In the second tier, an individual may dedicate the

resources
of his or her organization to respond to a local demand; in the
third
tier, individuals will act by themselves or with several other
persons
without the support of an official organization.'^ One caveat is
that
grassroots organizations can have a variety of guises, but I
restrict my
focus to those that are involved in social service provision; for
example,
a community development corporation that promotes housing
con-
struction is not included despite its belief that it is grassroots
because
it acts on behalf of the most impoverished residents.
Size and Capacity
The size and capacity of third-tier constituents is the dimension
that
distinguishes them from their first- and second-tier
counterparts. In
ghetto communities, grassroots providers typically work from
one-
room offices, rent small commercial or residential spaces, or
continu-
ally move about, using free space in apartments, churches, and
even
restaurants. They possess modest resources, such as limited
office sup-
plies and sparse recreational equipment, and function more as
club-
houses for individuals and families to congregate rather than as
provid-
ers of diverse programming. They survive through affiliations

with
local churches, occasional foundation support, minimal
municipal sup-
port (e.g., mobile health clinic. Parks Department
programming), do-
nations from community-based businesses and organizations,
and the
generosity of individual donors. Illegitimate social groups such
as
street gangs may occasionally be quite large (e.g., in Chicago,
neigh-
borhood gangs can contain several hundred members), with
member-
ship continually shifting with individual interest, law
enforcement ac-
tivities, and the social and geographic mobility of the members
themselves. Their presence within urban, poor neighborhoods is
com-
plex. In the last 2 decades, they have assumed a powerful
influence
on marginalized youth who are losing meaningful contact with
educa-
tional institutions or who are unable to find local employment
opportu-
nities. Many youth gangs act as employment agents, offering
attractive
opportunities for illicit income. At times, they may provide
direct
services, as discussed above.
A similar, though slightly less organized, version of grassroots

orga-
nizations composes the final type in the third tier. These are
social
groups that come together to complete a particular task and
remain
in existence only until the task is completed. They also will
likely have
no office space nor possess the necessary resources to act in the
capacity
of a service provider or community organizer. However, they
will
provide services on an ongoing, or at least a somewhat
systematic,
basis as long as funding, interest, and manpower exist (Ms.
Madden's
22d Street Neighborhood Block Club is an example). In many
impov-
erished Chicago communities, such informal groups provide
security-
related services. For example, members note the presence of
unfamil-
iar parked cars, report to the police "crack houses" or
abandoned
buildings that may act as havens for drug selling or prostitution,
moni-
tor the movements of others' children, and so on.
Community Relations
Community relations is an important distinguishing
characteristic of
the third tier. Grassroots organizations serve disproportionately
the
most socially isolated sectors ofthe community, those with the
weakest
attachments to mainstream institutions. Indeed, many members

ofthe
groups that provide services are themselves community
residents who
have weak ties to the mainstream. Recipients of third-tier
services have
poor relations with first- and second-tier actors for several
reasons:
they may lack knowledge of the services available in their
areas; they
may not like large organizations and their formal, bureaucratic
means
of interaction and communication (preferring instead the
informality
of the smaller providers); or they may have developed
antagonistic
relations with local institutions because of differences in
opinion re-
garding service delivery or programming design. Thus, those in
the
third tier cater to multiple segments of the community, who are
either
shunned by or in self-exile from the elite and midsized
providers.
Social Networks
The tendency to serve a highly marginalized clientele reinforces
the
localized social networks of the third tier. Third-tier providers
will
often operate within a highly bounded geographic setting. In

this
sense, not just street gangs but grassroots organizations as well
gener-
ally are "territorial." (Do not conflate confinement to a small
geo-
graphic area because of limited resources with the "turf"
motivations
of larger providers who seek to hold onto their geographic-
based client
pool.) Their restrictive quality limits the type and range of
communica-
tion and interaction that is possible. For example, streets and
little
used parking lots and parks are good spaces for dialogue,
information
exchange, needs assessment, outreach, and advertisement for
third-
tier providers. In the case of block clubs, the range of
communication
and interaction is further restricted; the front porch or lawn
serves as
the ostensible public space for social intercourse. Occasionally,
third-
tier providers may be asked to collaborate with a larger service
provider
and may receive support from municipal agencies, such as those
con-
cerned with public health or parks and recreation. But these
opportu-
nities are infrequent. In general, opportunities to expand
communica-
tion networks and partnership bases are rare.
Consider the Woodlawn African Association, which provides
week-
end Afrocentric education and offers general, secondary school

tu-
toring. One day each week, volunteers seek out teenage drug
dealers,
truants, and others who spend afternoons in parks and in front
of
corner stores. They spread the word of their weekend
educational
services, which are held in the basement of a building that they
rent
for $50 per month. The organizers informed me that they never
walk
out of their immediate area (because they see themselves "as,
of, and
for" the Woodlawn community) and that their only
collaborations
have occurred with several nearby businesses that have donated
school
supplies or food. They have never applied formally for external
sup-
port; they have turned down several offers to respond to a
request
for proposal because, in the words of their director, "we don't
know
how to act with these rich folk. Hell! We don't even have
letterhead,
so how you figure we're going to have a chance to get the
money."
Instead, he prefers to rely on the few connections that he
already
possesses, rotating his "begging from place to place so that
nobody
feels like they have to give me something all the time."
Tbe restrictive social networks of the third tier combined witb a
minimal resource base also lead to primarily informal service
delivery

methods (irrespective of whether there is a formal
organizational
structure—e.g., the street gang or the grassroots organization).
Lack-
ing continuous funding and resources that would make service
provi-
sion continuous, grassroots organizations deliver different
services at
different times, and services may have little advance notice,
which is
feasible because of their geographically restricted service area.
Loosely
organized social groups coalesce generally to fulfill a particular
need
and do not generate large expectations in their surrounding
commu-
nity. Thus, there is little pressure or need to formalize their
service
delivery. For youth gangs, though some offer recreational and
social
programs for their members and communities, this is often done
spon-
taneously because they need to locate a facility for their
basketball
tournament, softball league, or dance, and they need to engage
in
diplomacy with local residents, police, and other organizations
to spon-
sor such activities. They are largely unable to advertise or make
prom-
ises about future services given these constraints; thus, their

service
delivery is also informal. With respect to each of these actors,
more
so than the second tier, highly personalized relations
characterize their
exchange of services. Both provider and recipient will have
intimate
knowledge of one another and share numerous affective ties—
neigh-
bor, friend, gang member, peer, kin. In those rare cases in
which the
social roles are impersonal and bureaucratized, over time, as the
parties
become acquainted, more personal forms of communication and
inter-
action develop. As an indication of growing intimacy between
the
third tier and urban, poor communities in general, increasingly
it
is grassroots providers who are at the forefront of small-scale
social
movements in the South Side and West Side ghettos of Chicago.̂
"
In general, to increase capacity and expand social networks,
third-
tier actors typically need another person, group, or organization
out-
side of their tier who can act as an intermediary and put them in
contact with other tier representatives. I address this dynamic in
the
concluding section on social policy. For now, it is enough to
point out
that because of the historic Ijoundaries that separate these tiers,
this
is a difficult task. The bridge is not simply one of introduction;

two
different means of communication and perception must often be
linked together so that productive relationships can emerge.
The Three-Tier Model and Social Policy
In outlining social interaction in the different tiers, I have
suggested
that despite severe economic dislocations, urban, poor
communities
continue to have strong social networks as well as numerous
individuals
committed to local improvement. By "strong," I am not
implying that
the institutional foundations of contemporary inner cities are
com-
pletely intact. Neither am I suggesting that individuals,
households,
groups, and organizations in the inner city are working
harmoniously
with one another and simply need to be placed in better touch
with
the surrounding "mainstream." As I point out later,
mainstreaming
is not always the best solution to enhance the capacities of
distressed
communities or to put them in contact with social institutions in
the
larger society. Instead, I am suggesting that there are
identifiable social
relations in urban poor neighborhoods and that this existing
social

organization can itself serve as a foundation for efforts to
increase the
effectiveness of community functioning. '̂ Summarily stated,
commu-
nity capacities can be reinforced and strengthened in a manner
that
is both top-down and bottom-up. To do so requires a twofold,
dynamic
posture. On the one hand, resources (and ideas) will need to
come
from outside the community. On the other hand, how these
policies
become instantiated (i.e., both designed and implemented) will
be
mediated by the knowledge and patterns of social intercourse in
the
community itself. To date, it is precisely the recognition and
use of
existing community social organization when allocating
resources to
urban, poor spaces that is missing in our publicly and privately
funded
policies and initiatives.
Marginal or Neglected Groups
The first step to more responsive and effective community
engagement
is to gain an understanding of how the targered community and
client
pool is socially organized. Patterns of communication and
interaction
determine the ways residents gain and disseminate information
about
organizations that exist in tbeir community and about the
availability

of services. There are tier-specific ways of communicating and
inter-
acting whereby each tier can generate different expectations,
roles,
and obligations for both provider and client and employ specific
meth-
ods for outreach, advertisement, and membership and client
recruit-
ment. Although informal communication is by no means the
property
of the actors as the grassroots level, their level of advanced
communica-
tions technology, relation with a highly localized client pool,
and mea-
ger resources force them to rely heavily on knowledge of local
social
networks and informal conversation to maintain an effective
commu-
nity presence.
Knowledge of and respect for the specific forms of
communication
and interaction in each tier will enable funders and policy
planners to
gain greater access to the range of organizations and client
pools that
inhabit the community. Consider the example of two
individuals, each
of whom is a recipient of a similar service. The first uses the
services
of an agency yet is unfamiliar with other clients, has not met
the
supervisor, and knows few of the staff members in other than a
formal
capacity. The second recipient knows the majority of agency
patrons

(many of whom live close by), routinely sees the supervisor out
of tbe
office talking with residents, and, on occasion, has borrowed
money
from staff members. Neither relationship is inherently superior,
yet
the two persons will have different expectations of their
agencies. Each
will feel a different level of identification, attachment, and
investment,
and each will make different types of sacrifices, if needed, for
the
benefit of the organization. Our attempts to strengthen
institutions
must recognize such highly differentiated relations and patterns
of
interaction so we do not force either agency (and their
recipients) to
act in a capacity that departs dramatically from its existing
mode of
interaction. Where efforts require engagement with
organizations of
different tiers, there must be present a willingness to speak the
lan-
guage of each tier or to allow for different forms of
communication
and interaction (none of which necessarily entails sacrificing
demands
of responsibility and accountability).
Another means of engaging marginal or neglected groups is to

use
individuals in the third tier who have status in community
networks.
A tenant rights activist, a storefront church pastor, a grocery
store
manager active in local charitable activities, a founder of a
block club
or community watch program, and a street gang leader afford
external
agencies access to numerous, often marginalized, social
groupings.
In the past, these persons have served as frontline contacts for
law
enforcement agencies. Similarly, persons occupying these third-
tier
roles can facilitate outreach for community-building efforts.
Where it
is appropriate, community-based initiatives may bring aboard
such a
person in a governance or advisory capacity, or a community-
building
initiative can employ these individuals as intermediaries. In
many
cases, explicit aknowledgment of their importance for
strengthening
the social fabric will be enough motivation for local
stakeholders to
participate.
The above practices not only enable funds to be allocated more
efficiently and marginalized groups to be incorporated, but they
estab-
lish important links between urban poor communities and the
main-
stream. Both for government agencies and philanthropic
organiza-

tions interested in developing long-term relationships with a
community, individuals at the grassroots level can provide
important
future community liaisons. They provide a barometer to assess
tbe
effects of community building or service reform strategies and
to check
the results of more formal evaluations. They can also assist both
a
broader and a deeper distribution of funding by providing
information
about community needs that formal needs assessments (which
can be
time and cost prohibitive) may not permit.
The evaluation of an initiative can similarly assess the extent to
which third-tier stakeholders were used in the early conception,
design,
and implementation phases. For a government agency that is
involved
in numerous sites and in different cities, such assessment can
afford
an immediate, fairly reliable indicator of the type of effect a
program
has had in the overall community. At the very least, gaining this
infor-
mation early on will enable the agency to pursue subsequent
evalua-
tion on a more informed basis.
How does one gain an understanding ofthe myriad forms of

interac-
tion? Adopting a long-term perspective and understanding that
knowl-
edge building is an iterative process is a first step. When in the
commu-
nity, asking different organizations how they make their
services
known to their population will yield many different answers,
which
can be classified and gradually differentiated according to the
tier
criteria outlined above. Similarly, informal conversations with
key
spokespersons and stakeholders regarding how helping occurs
will
yield valuable anecdotes, from which information can be
gleaned and
community contacts made. Over time, patterns will become
apparent.
Knowledge will be gained that can be applied to the design or
evalua-
tion of an initiative. More informed questions can further be
posed.
Similarly, in the longer term, areas of strength and deficiency in
com-
munity capacities can be better identified and the relevant
individual,
group, or organization can be brought into the mix. This
accretion
of knowledge about community-level dynamics, structured in
this sys-
tematic manner by tier, will enable individuals who work
outside of
the community to gain a more informed basis from which to
make
decisions. In other words, their information will no longer be

mediated
by their reliance on first-tier institutions that are currently the
primary
spokespersons for urban, poor communities.
Using the First Tier Effectively
The first tier is not well connected to many resident
constituencies,
yet elite organizations currently command or influence the bulk
of
the public and private dollars that are being invested to
strengthen
the institutional sector. The challenge is to find ways to ensure
the
success of first-tier organizations while making them more
responsive
to a range of community concerns and demands, not just to the
select
few who are their patrons. To do so, and thus to tap into the
potential
of their second- and third-tier counterparts, the current
influence of
the first tier must be altered or, at the very least, kept in check.
External
agencies, such as charitable foundations, philanthropies, and
govern-
ment agencies, can employ several strategies to help achieve
this
transformation.
One strategy is to be more vigilant in monitoring the activities
of first-
tier organizations. If they claim to represent the "community" as
such,
they should be asked to do more than sustain their extant levels

of
programming, especially if there is information that suggests
that they are
reaching only a small proportion of residents. Currently,
Comprehensive
Community Initiatives have asked governance entities to ii
dent participation," and the response generally has been to
include a few
residents or less well-established service providers or to use
"focus
groups" to uncover community needs. Although necessary, such
efforts
are insufficient. Thus, more than pressure to include resident
participa-
tion is needed. Pressure must be specifically directed to
structural issues.
Non-first-tier client groups must not only be represented but
placed in
positions of leadership, counsel, and decision making.
First-tier organizations should be asked to demonstrate an
under-
standing of the population that they serve and explain their
posture
in relation to other tiers (residents and organizations). This
level of
accountability also places responsibility on funding agents to be
more
active in their evaluation, technical assistance, and review
process. The
recipient organization should describe the demographics and

general
community status of participants—are they members of street
gangs?
are unemployed families as well as those out of the labor force
repre-
sented? are there any high school dropouts?—and should have
some
idea of community sectors that are not participating in the
program
(and why). If the contours of the organization's programming do
not
enable broader outreach into the community, the grantee should
not
only explain why but should provide a concrete longer-term
plan that
will redress this restrictive community posture.
If the funded initiative includes multiple actors and seeks to
promote
collaboration among those involved, first-tier organizations—
most
probably those in the leadership positions—should make clear
the
types of roles that less well established organizations possess,
how
decision making is delineated in the initiative, and whether
funding is
distributed equitably to all participants. Wherever possible,
education
and training should be present for second- and third-tier actors,
in-
cluding proposal and grant development, funding opportunities,
budgetary management, staff development, and so on. Such
initiatives
should be conceived as community-building efforts and not only
as

Finally, though not requisite, external agencies that enter poor
com-
munities in order to design, fund, evaluate, or advise on social
policies
will benefit by taking greater responsibility to learn about the
tier
differentiation of the community. This can greatly reduce
dependence
on the limited knowledge and experience of first-tier
institutions.
Ideally, this will occur over time, based on continuous,
cumulatively
gathered knowledge that can be brought to bear on interactions
with
elite tier and other agencies. This is obviously possible in only
a few
situations, such as when a government agency or foundation
makes a
commitment to a limited number of communities or when a
municipal
agency can draw on its deep knowledge and experience in local
mat-
ters. However, where the city or territory is less familiar, at the
least.
the external agency can pose general questions to the local
contact
regarding tier presence, neglected constituents, and so forth.
Making Use of the Second and Third Tier

Working with second- and third-tier providers (and reaching
their
constituencies) is not an easy task. I have already suggested one
con-
crete step that can be taken: external entities can use local
channels
of communication and stakeholders in order to reach a broader
client
pool. (Moreover, if actors engaged in social policy adopted this
strat-
egy, their own social networks would be enhanced.) Below, I
outline
additional tactics. Although much of the discussion is pertinent
for
both tiers, when necessary I will specify the particular
challenges posed
by the midsized and grassroots sectors, respectively. I begin
with an
example from Chicago's Woodlawn community.
In Woodlawn, a social service agency in the first tier wanted to
sponsor a track meet that brought together adolescents and
youth
from Woodlawn and surrounding neighborhoods. The agency
hoped
to use the track meet as a way to promote collaboration among
service
providers in the area. It obtained the necessary funds, used
primarily
to purchase equipment and offer part-time employment to older
youth
as referees and coaches. Its efforts were hampered because none
of
the children from surrounding neighborhoods would come into
the
boundaries of Woodlawn. The street gang within Woodlawn is

an
"enemy" street gang; thus, children were afraid to walk into the
com-
munity. One option was to employ the street gang leaders in the
track meet, using the latter as a bridge to promote friendly
interaction
among the gangs. This would have created a direct link between
first
and third tiers, much like the Youth Center in the Crenshaw
commu-
nity. However, the staff members were reluctant to approach the
street
gangs, partly because they did not wish to give the gang leaders
any
indication that they were interested in developing a longer-term
rela-
tionship but also because they feared the repercussions from
other
first-tier organizations and their funders if they made such
nontradi-
tional use of their budget. They sensed that other community
institu-
tions were not only vehemently against street gang activity but
would
not look favorably on their attempts to contact and institute a
formal
relation with street gang leaders.
The Woodlawn social service agency in this example has many
op-
tions to address the problems of participation for youth outside
of the
community—of which direct consultation with gang leaders is
only
one. Its greatest failure was not understanding existing
community

dynamics. If it had known ofthe potential barriers, it could have
taken
into account mobility issues for children by moving its track
meet to
a more suitable venue and renting a van or bus to transport
partici-
pants. Or, this knowledge might have allowed the agency to
make a
thoughtful and forceful argument for employing street gang
leaders,
thus addressing the apprehensions of its colleagues in the first
tier (as
well as its funder). Finally, there may already exist other
second- and
third-tier organizations (or community leaders) that have close
ties to
or are already working in a preventive or intervention capacity
with
the local gangs. These would be important sources of counseling
and
the first point of contact for confronting current and future
problems
with local gang activity.
This example raises several general issues concerning the use of
second- and third-tier actors. To begin, at what level of
involvement
can second- and third-tier organizations be useful in
community-
building processes? I argued above that many such
organizations and

informal social groups are effective because of their informality
and
their intimate links with the local community. Incorporation
into a
reform initiative or social policy can compromise this
community rela-
tionship. What had been gained in terms of enlisting a non-first-
tier
agency could potentially be lost if the process of incorporation
dramat-
ically alters the behavior of the agency.̂ ^
In some cases, it may be sufficient to recognize the presence of
existing second- and third-tier actors, develop and sustain good
rela-
tions with them, and understand that they serve as important
channels
of communication, information, and service implementation.
Where
more formal participation is understood to be beneficial for the
policy
being implemented, a measure of flexibility should be adopted
in
order to avoid several problems. First, although they may
appear tran-
sitory or fleeting, the social relations of institutions and clients
in the
second and third tier are structured in identifiable ways.
Incorporating
these actors by involving them in community collaboration
initiatives,
social policies, or philanthropic resource allocation can lead to
disrup-
tions in these arrangements. For example, their inclusion in a
promi-
nent foundation-sponsored initiative may subordinate them and

un-
dermine their existing leadership roles. If their constituency
learns of
their newfound connections or community role, demands on
them
may increase. If the demands are not met, they may be
responsible
for unfulfilled expectations, thus worsening their relations with
their
constituents. In the case of second-tier actors who are
ostensibly not
service providers and who are only fulfilling a temporary
community
need, mcorporation into a formal human service initiative may
not
be appropriate.
The grassroots sector presents its own set of difficulties because
many of its constituents are saddled with tremendous fiscal
constraints
and routinely disband and reform as their resources ebb and
flow.
Similarly, although for different reasons, a block dub or
community
stakeholder may have a tenuous existence laying dormant (thus,
not
easily located) until a community exigency brings them into the
public
eye. Use of the third tier must acknowledge such impermanence.
Avoiding such pitfalls when working with either second- or

third-tier
providers requires an honest appraisal by all parties of their
respective
capacities and limitations. It also entails a certain commitment
by the
sponsors to what may be unique second- and third-tier needs or
de-
mands, for example, promise of resources up front,
acknowledgment
that the nature of expenditures in program and outreach efforts
may
differ in the second and third tier, expanding the measures of
program
outcomes, and modifying evaluative criteria.
Municipal agencies and charitable foundations are uniquely
posi-
tioned to build community capacities through the use of the
second
and third tier. Both actors often orient themselves to particular
com-
munities, directing a large share of resources to a limited
number of
sites on the assumption that this strategy can have secondary
effects
on the community level (such reasoning may be absent or
understated
in the calculus of federal government financing, where patterns
of
distribution are more susceptible to political and ideological
shifts). As
such, a foundation or city agency may decide to fund or support
a
program for reasons that may not be directly related to the
program
itself but that have indirect importance for the social fabric of

the
community overall. These include supporting the fiscal needs of
a
struggling but respected local organization and ensuring the
surviv-
ability of a service provider in an area void of other agencies. If
the
goals are modest and if the caveats listed above are observed,
an agency
or foundation's wish to become more involved in the community
can
be fulfilled by calling on the second and third tier.
For any policy actor interested in making inroads into the
second
and third tier of a particular community, there must be a
willingness
to remain flexible when employing evaluative criteria and
measures
of outcomes. A gang intervention program and an initiative to
offer
health care and education to teenage mothers are two examples
of
services that are routinely provided by second- and third-tier
agencies.
The success that is possible in these programs may not be
immediately
visible. Instead, the real success of such programs may be the
develop-
ment of regular communication between community
organizations
and individuals who do not actively participate in the activities
of local
institutions. In the long run, such contact may motivate these
socially
isolated individuals to participate in similar ways with other

institu-
tions, such as schools or employers. By funding such programs
while
allowing for the indirect benefits and longer-term outcomes that
can
result, funding agencies can make a unique contribution to the
community-building process.
Funding agencies should take advantage of one of the most im-
portant dimensions of second- and third-tier actors: their client
pools
are usually geographically restricted and stable both in terms of
size
and frequency of contact. Such geographic restriction and
stability
fosters dependence between actors, both psychologically and in
terms
of their everyday needs. This leads to a relation of mutual
benefit
whereby both client and provider do not act simply out of their
own
interest but in a manner that reproduces their relationship. The
geo-
graphic roots that second- and third-tier agencies stake become
an
avenue to target localized constituencies that may not be in
systematic
contact with the first tier.
Finally, the third tier poses a particular challenge because of the
street gangs that can act as grassroots providers. It is not always

neces-
sary to reach out to local street gangs and include them in
programs.
There are obvious dangers in making associations with street
gangs,
especially those that might be fostering violent activity or that
are
actively engaged in illegitimate activities such as drug selling.
How-
ever, one should understand that gangs serve more than a
criminal
function in neighborhoods experiencing extreme social and
economic
deprivation. '̂ They bring in resources, they often provide social
and
recreational services, they provide security and escort services,
they
may have deep historical roots in the community, and,
consequently,
they may garner status and respect from significant sectors of
the local
residential population. Thus, even for residents who are
frustrated
with the violence and instability that local gangs promote,
gangs may
be more than an enemy within, on occasion providing a source
of
identification and social support.
In most communities, there are individuals and organizations
that
work diligently with local gangs to resolve confiicts, form
peace treat-
ies, reduce violence, and reintegrate gang members into the
main-
stream. These actors can provide invaluable assistance when at-

tempting to address gang-related obstacles such as the
transportation
of youth across gang boundaries, the intimidation of clients by
street-
corner gangs, and the member recruitment and drug distribution
in
social service centers by entrepreneurial gangs. Using such
resources
can help overcome the challenge while enabling community
actors to
address the criticism that they are under the control of street
gangs.
The advantages of building on existing community social
organiza-
tion by reaching out to the second and third tier are numerous.
These
links can provide necessary checks against the growth of first-
tier he-
gemony; in effect, the first tier no longer will have a monopoly
on
brokering community relations witb the "external" world. It can
strengthen community institutions by lending a stamp of
legitimacy
to the second and third tier (which may not currently exist given
their lack of inclusion in prominent community initiatives) and
by
reinforcing existing relations of assistance and service delivery
that tie
residents to community organizations. For the second and third
tier,

a greater awareness of resources within and outside their
communities
can result. Second- and third-tier agencies that do not actively
seek
outside support because of intimidation and unfamiliarity with
bureau-
cratic cultures will have increased confidence to translate their
personal
relations into more formal languages and communication styles
that
can garner additional support.
Conclusion
The tier-based model is intended as a means to conceptualize a
set of
social relations that have developed among service provider
institutions
and residents ofthe communities they serve. In order that it not
be seen
as an overly rigid or inflexible representation of these
relationships,
I offer the following concluding observations. First, the
boundaries
separating the tiers are not impermeable. That is, organizations
may
move from one tier to another in accordance with shifts in
outreach
strategies, populations served, budgetary status, community
relations,
and so on. As I indicated above, an organization that wishes to
reach
out to resident constituencies who have specific needs and who
thus
require modifications in traditional programming and service
delivery
may experience a change in its relations with other community

organi-
zations. Its novel outreach efforts may be welcomed and
supported.
Or, conversely, it may be ostracized in the provider community
because
it catered to specific resident groups or invaded another service
pro-
vider's "turf." Thus, it may find that its networks have changed,
its
relations with funders altered, and, consequently, its tier
placement
reconstituted. Similarly, recipients' use of elite, midsized, and
grass-
roots providers may be fluid. At any point in time an individual
or
household might receive services from all three tiers.
Notwithstanding the significant differences among the tiers and
the
lack of existing cross-tier collaboration, there are no fixed,
intractable
constraints that preclude association among organizations in
different
tiers. The tiers are better understood as spheres of contact,
association,
and familiarity whose borders are socially determined (as
opposed to
preordained) through mutual exchange and interaction over
time.
In my research, I have witnessed incidents of collaboration
between
providers that are radically different from one another in
orientation,
size, and capacity for service delivery. However, these are the
exception
rather than the rule. In general, networks of contact and

15Introduction to Research Pro.docx

15Introduction to Research Pro.docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to 15Introduction to Research Pro.docx

Similar to 15Introduction to Research Pro.docx (20)

More from novabroom

More from novabroom (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

15Introduction to Research Pro.docx