Description
The Community Capitals Framework (CCF) isn’t designed specifically to identify or protect community character, but rather a conceptual model for evaluating a community’s overall health and capacity for community and economic development. Developed by researchers at the North Central Regional Center for Rural Development at Iowa State University, the framework resulted from an observation that “entrepreneurial communities” that were sustainable and successful also paid attention to seven types of capital: natural, cultural, human, social, political, financial, and built. (Fig. 2.1) The approach is similar to planning for multiple infrastructures (see process description below), with the concept of capital roughly equivalent to the concept of an infrastructure; this framework extends the typical application, however, by breaking down the concept into more types.
The Community Capitals approach likewise breaks each type of capital down into measurable attributes or indicators. For example, social capital includes measures of group membership, diversity, and local networks; financial capital includes tax revenues and costs, philanthropic donations, loans, and poverty rates; human capital includes population and demographics, education, skills, and health. The Framework doesn’t specifically account for many of the quirky and material elements of community character that are the focus of this research, but those elements are components of one or more types of capital.
As a process, CCF is used most frequently to evaluate and track progress on specific (though broad) community initiatives and movements for change. Proponents of the Framework view the capitals as both means and ends and view them as inextricably linked: a decline or increase in one type of capital is very likely to pull the others up or down as well. These theories are based upon the concept of cumulative causation, which Gunnar Myrdal explained as, “The place that loses assets, for whatever reason, will continue to lose them through system effects” (see Feedback Cycles in New Frontiers section).
Steps
A CCF analysis operates conceptually like an analysis of financial capital. Unlike systems approaches, the Framework compartmentalizes ideas and indicators. The CCF approach works by “identifying assets in each capital (stock), the types of capital invested (flow), the interaction among the capitals, and the resulting impacts across capitals.” The assets and interactions are then carefully described using both quantitative and qualitative information, and changes are tracked over time.
The Framework includes a strong evaluation and monitoring component, but emphasizes that evaluation is only useful when carried out in relation to clear long-term goals. Progress is evaluated not in terms of specific outputs or activities, but rather multiple outcomes related to many capitals. As a tool for understanding aspects of communities, CCF is more useful to specific agencies and organizations than to loosely-organized grassroots groups or the community at large. With a basis in academic theory and analysis procedures primarily involving research and observation, the process does not require or seek to increase participation.
CCF can also be used as a community development framework, however, as well as an analysis tool. In this capacity, CCF is used to identify certain aspects of a community that would benefit most from change, and to examine how changes in those aspects will influence other types of capital. When used in this way, the CCF framework clearly shows the benefits of participation and local involvement, since those characteristics are positive aspects of capital in and of themselves.
Pros and Cons
The CCF approach is not designed to help communities discover the types of “heart and soul” elements that are the focus of this document, nor would the approach be effective at doing so, but does offer a way to analyze the community characteristics that typically lead to the protection or loss of heart and soul. CCF is not intended to be a community process either, in the sense of visioning or appreciative inquiry, but rather provides a philosophy of community change that can be used to inform any number of on-the-ground processes and initiatives.
A major drawback of the CCF approach lies in its academic nature. The concept can be complex and difficult to explain, and does not lend itself well to participatory planning processes; it is best used by outside organizations interested in tracking or studying community change. The same academic nature can be a big advantage, however, in that it can improve the efficiency and effectiveness of processes that lack strong analysis and evaluation components.
Examples
The CCF has been used extensively by rural development organizations in the Midwest – in particular, to study and change the common cycles of rural disinvestment and youth flight. The most extensive project is probably the collaborative HomeTown Competitiveness initiative in Nebraska, led by the Heartland Center for Leadership Development (see Organizations), the RUPRI Center for Rural Entrepreneurship, and the Nebraska Community Foundation. The North Central Regional Center for Rural Development at the University of Iowa used the CCF to analyze the HomeTown Competitiveness program, which sought to reverse the population and income declines in rural plains communities.
While they do not specifically use this approach, there are several other projects that rely upon very similar concepts and strategies. The 3i Solutions project in New Hampshire (see Case Studies) bases its work around three “infrastructures” that mirror the capitals in CCF; organizers focus less on indicators and analysis than on planning and action, but the theory of community change is very similar. Sustaining Jackson Hole (see Case Studies) uses a tailored process designed specifically for that community, but the basic concepts are again very similar. Jackson Hole relies heavily upon indicators and data to evaluate the community and track its progress over time, though the process itself focuses more on implementation and participation.
A conceptualization
of the Community Capitals framework outlines the seven types of capital present
in a healthy community. Image:
for Rural Development.