Paths to community empowerment: Organizing at home

This study examines how low-income minority communities build on their strengths to improve material conditions and how these actions lead to further empowerment at the individual and group level, and increase engagement with civic life. Based on earlier qualitative research, low-income limited equity housing co-ops were chosen as research. Using quantitative questionnaire data, a path model was tested in which variables were organized into four levels.Level One: Attributes of the person and the context were conceptualized asexogenous variables leading to activities first at the co-op level.Level Two:co-op activities were thought to affect living conditions in the building and evaluations of co-op ownership, which comprisedLevel Three,quality of life in the building. All preceding levels were thought to influenceempowerment, as measured atLevel Four through an attitudinal measure of empowerment, and reported participation in civic activities in the broader community. The model, which emphasizes the collective and material nature of empowerment in addition to the psychological, seems justified by the data. It is especially significant that the aggregate measure of perceived participation of others predicted building quality, and that the aggregate measure of building quality went on to influence empowerment and voting behavior. Personal participation in building activities also proved a good predictor of empowerment, indicating that empowerment operates at both the individual and the group level. Furthermore, increased empowerment at the level of attitude did influence civic activities, in conjunction with personal characteristics and perceived neighborhood qualities. (Tests of causality in the opposite direction were not significant.) Our findings confirm the importance of all three components of empowerment, as articulated by Zimmerman and his colleagues (1992), that is, empowerment at the psychological, interactional, and behavioral level. It extends the conceptualization by introducing the group level of analysis. We thank the Robert F. Wagner Sr. Center for Urban Public Policy at the City University of New York Graduate School and University Center and the Fund for the City of New York for early support and the Edna McConnell Clark Foundation for current support. We acknowledge the invaluable participation in the original project of Heléne Clark, Eric Glunt, Bill Roane, and April Tyler. We also thank the anonymous reviewers and the editor for their helpful and extremely thorough comments and suggestions.