Marilyn Gittell

Social Capital and Social Change Women’s Community Activism

Community development organizations (CDOs) are the primary vehicle for development in low-income neighborhoods and have begun to be examined in terms of the degree to which they increase citizen participation, increase civic capacity, and stabilize and revitalize neighborhoods through the creation of social capital. Women play a key role in community development. The authors find that most women-led CDOs define their community development efforts broadly, increase community capacity, and strengthen local democracy. To the extent that women-led groups contribute differentially to the development of social capital by increasing community participation and trust and by creating community networks and civic action, they represent a model for community development efforts.

Expanding Civic Opportunity Urban Empowerment Zones

The authors report on the first year of the 1993 federal Empowerment Zone and Enterprise Communities Program (EZ) and its ability to expand community capacity in the six urban EZ areas. They hypothesize that expanded community capacity depends on the strength of participation and the development of networks. They find variation in capacity levels among sites and limited expansion of community capacity because mayors control the process, community organization roles are limited, and existing networks are reused. They conclude, however, that it is too early to assess the full EZ impact.

School Reform in New York and Chicago Revisiting the Ecology of Local Games

School reform efforts in New York City in 1967 and in Chicago in 1989 provide a laboratory for the comparative study of regime politics in education. Using Longs local game theory, this analysis reveals significant differences in the two city cultures. Differences in the outcomes of the reform efforts can be explained as a product of the ability of city stakeholders to coalesce and advance their interests at the state level.

Decentralization and Citizen Participation in Education

public education. It is appropriate, therefore, to use this experience to understand the complexities of social change demonstrated by that struggle. During 70 years of American public school education, citizen participation has periodically played an important part in shaping educational policies. Civic groups at the turn of the century were especially active in supporting highly innovative programs for the new immigrant population. The arrival of these groups placed a tremendous burden on the schools, particularly because of the need to acculturate large numbers of non-English-speaking students (2). Almost immediately, citizen groups were formed to apply pressure for new educational programs. They actively campaigned for such innovations as kindergarten classes, first established for Germanspeaking children in Wisconsin. Subsequently, many city school systems incorporated kindergarten classes into the lower-school programs, and still others provided visiting teachers to work with children in their homes to supplant school programs (2). Colin Greers recent study (44), however, indicates that these efforts fall short of success and that the immigrant poor were never effectively dealt with by the public education system. Indirectly, the expanding school population was also a force in restructuring the school system. School board membership, administrative posts, and teaching positions had been traditionally distributed as political patronage (19). As the inadequacies of patronage in education were exposed, civic groups moved to bring professionalism into school systems (8) (18). There developed two systems of education: one urban, based on civil service and in many ways politically unaccountable; the other surburban and rural, with some measure of accountability through formal elected boards with control over policy (1) (60). A combination of the civic reform movement and

Professionalism and Public Participation in Educational Policy-Making: New York City, A Case Study

D ECISION-MAKING studies and analyses of local power structure in cities have much to contribute to an understanding of the operation of school systems. More intensive studies of decision-making and the distribution of power in school systems can, in turn, contribute significantly to knowledge of how cities are governed. Almost every study of power in large cities points to functional specialization, dispersion of power to specialists in particular areas, and an increased role of the bureaucracy in decisionmaking. This study of decision-making in the New York City school system concerns itself with the distribution of power, testing the hypothesis of functional specialization and hopefully expanding on its implications.

Metropolitan Mayor: Dead End

A N aroused public in New York City has, within the last few years, condemned its mayor as machine manipulated and indecisive, returned him to office by an overwhelming majority acclaiming his independence, and, in growing disappointment, reverted to denouncing his ineffectiveness as a leader. Obviously, the public is confused in its evaluation of political candidates and in its determination of what constitutes a meaningful course of action. The electorate of large cities throughout the country can be sympathetic, having experienced similar frustrations. The fault may not rest with the public nor their chosen mayors. Perhaps the experts have been negligent in providing a proper perspective to the problem. Since Lincoln Steffens Shame of the Cities and the muckraking furor at the turn of the century, much attention has been directed toward big city government. Such governments have been under the constant scrutiny of newspapers, civic organizations, businessmen, state officials, and academicians. Study commissions function on a continuous basis, exposes are plentiful and a variety of changes and reform measures have been instituted. After at least a half-century of structural reform and governmental reorganization, however, it is still quite evident that no meaningful change has taken place in the essential quality of city government. The lack of political leadership in the city must be held accountable for its static posture. It would be expected that since large cities are the source of almost every advancement in our culture, the center of our civilization, they would provide the basis for political leadership and a training ground for potential state and national political figures. Quite the contrary is the case. > The author of this article presents data showing that the office of mayor in the large city is a political dead end avoided by our best potential national leaders. She argues that the only hope for salvaging the office of mayor as a significant local executive and as a training ground for potential national leaders lies in federal programs for urban development and reinforcement of the citys prestige in state politics.