PRESENTERS: Dr. Kevin Gosine Dr. Darlene Ciuffetelli Parker Dr. Tiffany L. Gallagher We report selected qualitative results from a large, multi-phase evaluation of an anti-poverty initiative funded by the Local Poverty Reduction Fund of the Province of Ontario. In the evaluation research phase undertaken by the presenters, non-profit literacy programs in a region of southern Ontario were studied with the following objectives: To learn about service users' specific needs, the benefits service users accrued from their participation in programs, how agencies (administrators and staff) might better meet service users' needs, and the ongoing challenges that agencies and service users face. Qualitative findings from individual interviews and focus groups were triangulated across all participants. This research illuminated the mechanisms and outcomes of social capital production within community literacy programs. In addition to supporting literacy, programs presented participants with opportunities to cultivate bridging and bonding forms of social capital. That is, social and organizational ties that encompass resources, information, connections, mutual aid, and various opportunities. By way of the conditions created and programmatic measures employed within programs, bridging social capital often strengthened into deeper bonding ties between and amongst service users and, in many cases, staff and volunteers. The social capital generated provided service users with a sense of community, belonging, acceptance and ongoing opportunities for bridging social capital outcomes, all previously lacking in the lives of many. This countered the isolation, marginalization, and demonization service users endured in other settings and, for many, instilled a sense of optimism and hope. Administrators and staff described efforts to create program cultures conducive to the development of social capital and mutual support. The study contributes to the existing literature by highlighting how non-profit community entities can benefit individual service users and their communities beyond their stated missions by fostering social and organizational connectedness, promoting communal cohesion and social trust, and cultivating the typically unacknowledged talents, strengths, and assets within marginalized communities and populations. This paper was originally presented at the Annual Meeting of the Canadian Sociological Association, 03 June 2021. A revised version of the paper has since been published in the International Journal of Community Well-Being (2022, Vol. 5, No. 4). https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s42413-022-00186-2

1. Bridging and Bonding
A Case for Prioritizing Social Capital Cultivation in
Non-Profit Literacy Programming
Kevin Gosine, PhD
Associate Professor
Department of Sociology
Brock University
Darlene Ciuffetelli Parker, PhD
Professor
Department of Educational Studies
Brock University
Tiffany Gallagher, PhD
Professor
Department of Educational Studies
Brock University
Paper Presented at the Annual Meeting of the Canadian Sociological Association
June, 2021

2. Acknowledgment

3. Research Manager
Christopher Walsh
Project Planning Leads
Dr. Mary-Beth Raddon
Dr. Dennis Soron
Research Assistants
Palmina Conversano
Amber-Lee Varadi
The research was funded by the Local Poverty Reduction Fund
of the Province of Ontario.
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this presentation represent those of
the three presenters and do not necessarily reflect that of the funding
body, the programs studied, the research manager or project planning
leads, or the organization that was evaluated.

4. Objective of Research

5. Part of a larger, multi-phase, arms-length
evaluation of a regionally-based organization
that provides funding to non-profit programs
within a region of Ontario that have a poverty
reduction mandate.
In evaluation research phase undertaken by the
presenters, non-profit literacy programs in a
region of southern Ontario were studied in order
to learn:
o Service Users’ specific needs
o the benefits Service Users accrued from their participation in
programs
o how agencies (Administrators and Staff) might better meet
Service Users’ needs
o the ongoing challenges that agencies and Service Users face

6. Research Question

7. Beyond their explicitly stated program objectives,
what role can non-profit literacy programs play in
terms of empowering marginalized individuals
and strengthening their communities?
This presentation focuses on one multifaceted
benefit Service Users derived from participation in
literacy programs, namely positive social capital
outcomes.

8. Literature Review

9. oNon-profit community programs as vessels for
fostering social capital
(Balatti & Falk, 2002; Lee, 2013; Sharkey et al, 2017; Small, 2009)
oRelationship between literacy programming
and social capital cultivation
(Balatti & Falk, 2002; Balatti et al, 2007)
oSociological benefits of social capital
production within communities
o Greater social cohesion
o Heightened social trust
o Stronger capacity for collective mobilization
o Enhanced well-being and opportunities for individuals
o Reduction in crime and social harm (Putnam, 2000; Sharkey et al., 2017)

10. Conceptual Framework:
Social Capital Theory

11. Robert Putnam (2000)
o Bridging and bonding social capital
o Importance of fostering bridging social capital in lives of
marginalized individuals
Dahyun Lee (2013)
o Bonding and bridging forms of capital not mutually exclusive
o Elucidated idea of “bridged bonding”

12. Mario Luis Small (2009)
o Mothers who made use of NYC child care centres experienced
‘unanticipated gains’ in the form of social capital outcomes
o Social capital accrued via participation in child care centres
particularly benefits low-income mothers
o Organizational embeddedness perspective: organizational
involvement can produce social capital benefits for individuals,
but quality of social capital contingent on characteristics,
practices and arrangements of organization

13. Methodology

14. oQualitative research design triangulating focus
groups and in-depth, semi structured individual
interviews
oCombination purposive/quota sampling used
to select participants from 8 non-profit literacy
programs
oThree categories of participants sampled:
• Service Users (n = 72)
• Program Staff (n = 11)
• Program Leads (n = 8)
o11 focus groups conducted consisting of
between 3 and 12 participants
o11 Individual interviews conducted
oData analyzed using NVivo qualitative software
program
oPrincipal investigators and RAs worked to
achieve intercoder agreement

15. Findings: Key Themes

16. oSupport programs as sites of inclusion,
affirmation, and the cultivation of community
cultural wealth
oSupport programs as sites of mutual aid
oSupport programs play pivotal role in
counteracting stigma, isolation and exclusion
oSupport programs as sites for the cultivation of
bonding and bridging social capital.
The four themes overlap.

17. Support programs as sites
of inclusion, affirmation,
and the cultivation of
community cultural wealth

18. Support programs are settings where Service Users can
cultivate rewarding, affirming, supportive, and
collaborative relationships with Staff as well fellow
program participants
Front line worker, Program D
Carmen
I think the main reason for me is that it’s a sense of
community unlike anything else I’ve ever felt…. And I’ve
worked and lived downtown for, oh my gosh, many many
years! I’ve always been part of downtown. My elementary
school, [name of elementary school], is right there. So, it’s
definitely a sense of community and folks look out for each
other here. And personally, somehow, I find it very hard for
people to gather. And I find the hub of the drop-in centre is
just this gathering place for folks. And it becomes a family.
Everybody is extremely supportive of one another. And if you
go places now, everybody is always on their phones and
very isolated. ... It’s bingo, like you see today. It’s card
games, it’s chess, it’s just sitting down having coffee… It’s just
a wonderful community.

19. Social networks and mutual support
experienced within programs offered service
users opportunity to cultivate previously
untapped talents
Front line worker, Program D
Carmen
…when we had the art garage, folks would complete things
there and then they could sell it in the shop. So, that would be
the obvious direct link to employment or to increase income.
But just going back to my example…so, when I was working in
the employment piece before moving over to the art garage,
there was one gentleman who we tried to place…. we tried to
help him get traditional employment and it was not working…
but he doodled on napkins. It was like tissues. And he would
draw houses and we saw this, and spoke with him, and then
sort of morphed this into like… “Why don’t we try and sell these
pieces?” “We’ll give you all your materials.” And then he
would just draw, and draw, and draw. Fast forward a couple
years later, like, he got really involved with [Program D] and
he’s got canvases. He’s moved to colour.

20. Service Lead, Program F
Drew
Every one of our kids has something, okay? And we find
that something and we capitalize on it. So, if you look over
there, we have musical instruments, okay? So, we have
singers. We have musicians. We have songwriters. We
have poets. We have artists. So our Christmas card is just
one example of how we make sure we find that talent in
each one of our youths and we showcase it. So we have a
competition every year between all two of my centres
now that, ah, whoever wants to be the feature of our
Christmas card, and that’s what goes out to all of the
community. And this is just one example of how we
showcase each talent that every--cuz every kid’s got
something. Every kid has something that is special.

21. Support Programs as
sites of mutual aid

22. Various forms of support Service Users received
from each other seemed as important as that
provided by trained Staff and volunteers (if not
more so)
Mutual support initiatives illustrate cultivation
and benefits of bridged-bonding social capital
(Lee, 2013)

23. Program E Focus Group Exchange
Hannah
And here, we’ve had women that have gone homeless
and they’ve taken the steps--and we got them off the
street cuz they want to get off the street. Other women,
they want to stop their lifestyle, everybody pulls
together. And I think you said something--no, it wasn’t
you. One of the other girls said something to one of the
night ladies, and whatever it was she said, it made her
want to make herself better. And this is what we do for
each other. We make each other better, we support
each other.
Chelsea
I think what I take away from this group, if I were to
leave tomorrow and never come back, just knowing
that there are good people still left in a world that’s
so scary, and people that are there to support. And
whether I’m here or not, they’re always willing to
help somebody else that is in need. And I think just
knowing that the option of that being there and the
people that come together for this group--it’s really
incredible to know that you have somebody.

24. Role of support programs
in counteracting stigma,
isolation and exclusion

25. Programs countered, or provided a safe refuge
from, the stigma and discrimination Service
Users experienced in other contexts and areas
of their lives

26. Sydney
They don’t get that treatment [at Program B]. When
they’re with groups in the gymnasium they don’t get
treated any different than any other kids. My son, my
oldest son, does not get treated [differently]. He goes with
a pack, and they get their little pack on Fridays, and they
all get together and some are at different… spectrums
than others. And, they don’t get treated any different.
They all get treated the same across the board, which I
think, has made him extremely comfortable to the point
where he is getting snotty and saying, “You know, I’m
more normal than they are!”
Sydney, Program B Service User and mother of
son with an intellectual disability:

27. Support programs as sites
for the cultivation of
bonding & bridging social
capital

28. Leah
They’re great with helping me try and find something
and helping me with my resume and stuff… They’ve just
always been a good support. Like, especially with the
people I deal with in the [agency], I think they’re just
amazing. And they’re so helpful. They really help me
and, you know, she actually took the time to really
know who I am instead of just another client.
Program A Service User

29. Program E Service User
Chelsea
I heard about [this agency] through my mum. She was
the cook here for about two years and I started coming
with her. Just--I have a severe anxiety disorder. So I try
and get myself out of my house and coming to group
was one of the best ways to do it, and I could come
three days a week, get out of the house, and have a
support system. Every time I come, there’s somebody
here to talk to, and somebody willing to help.

30. Example of building bridging social capital via a
collaborative community project
Program Lead, Program G
Carley
So, we’re doing a pollinator garden. So, they’re going to
learn about plants and they’re building bee houses and
birdhouses. They’re planting the garden, and we’re giving
back to the community because we’re making some
birdhouses for [city], that’s going to [name of city park]. And
we’re bringing seniors and kids together to do it! Yay!
(Begins clapping aloud) Yay us!

31. Discussion

32. oUNESCO (2009) has described literacy as “a
process of learning that enables individuals to
achieve personal goals, develop their
knowledge and potential, and participate
fully in the community and wider society” (p.
410)
oLiteracy programs studied able to promote
this conceptualization of literacy via formal
programmatic measures and informal
practices that enabled social capital
cultivation

33. oService Users provided with ongoing bridging
social capital opportunities
oBridged-bonding evident in programs
oPrograms helped to cultivate community
cultural wealth (Yosso, 2005)
oInsofar as programs bring people together
and enable Service Users to cultivate social
capital, such programs play instrumental role
in strengthening communal bonds and
enhancing social trust

34. Key contributions of study

35. oHighlights how non-profit community
organizations can benefit individuals and
communities in ways that transcend stated
missions
oProvides insight into conditions created within
community literacy programs, along with
programmatic measures implemented, that
enable positive social capital outcomes
oIlluminates the conditions under which bridged-
bonding can take place within non-profit
community programs

36. References

37. o Balatti, J., Black, S. R., & Falk, I. (2007). Teaching for social capital
outcomes: The case of adult literacy and numeracy courses.
Australian Journal of Adult Learning, 1-15.
o Balatti, J., & Falk, I. (2002). Socioeconomic contributions of adult
learning to community: A social capital perspective. Adult
Education Quarterly, 52(4), 281-298.
o Lee, D. (2013). How the arts generate social capital to foster
intergroup social cohesion. The Journal of Arts Management,
Law, and Society, 43(1), 4-17.
o Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of
American community. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.
o Sharkey, P., Torrats-Espinosa, G., & Takyar, D. (2017). Community
and the crime decline: The causal effect of local nonprofits on
violent crime. American Sociological Review, 82(6), 1214-1240.
o Small, M. L. (2009). Unanticipated gains: Origins of network
inequality in everyday life. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
o UNESCO. (2009). Education for all global monitoring report:
Overcoming inequality - why governance matters. Paris:
UNESCO.
o Yosso, T. J. (2005). Whose culture has capital? A critical race
theory discussion of community cultural. wealth. Race, Ethnicity,
and Education 8(1), 69-91.