ADMINISTRATION & SOCIETY / November 1998Couto / POLICIES OF EMPOWERMENT
Foundations and government agencies use community coalitions increasingly as
instrumentsofsocialpolicyandprogramimplementation. Therationalesandhopesforcommunity
coalitions abound with terms such as grassroots, representation, development, and
empowerment.Thisarticleexaminestherangeandrelationshipoftheconceptualmeaningsofthese
terms to explain their consequences on community coalition building. It arranges their
differences in conceptual patterns and suggests that community coalitions have their greatest
chance of success when their member groups share the same forms of representation and
participation and pursue similar forms of empowerment and change. This discussion clarifies
the different policy and program purposes that different community coalitions may
serve.Thus,thearticleexplainsthedifficultieswithbroadcoalitionsandmayassisttomake
somecommunitycoalitionbuildingeasierandtomakeallcommunitycoalitionsmoreeffective.
COMMUNITY COALITIONS AND
GRASSROOTS POLICIES OF
EMPOWERMENT
RICHARD A. COUTO
University of Richmond
Anyone who has worked with community coalitions to address social
andeconomicproblemseventuallyunderstandsthatorganizingsubsetsof groups
within a coalition would be far easier than attempting to hold all the groups
together in one coalition. A seemingly infinite array of personal,
programmatic, and political differences stand ready to disrupt any
coalition’sunity(Speer&Chavis,1995).Entropy,thetendencyforthings to break
down, seems to rule supreme in community coalitions. On the
AUTHOR’SNOTE:IamindebtedtothemembersoftheNashvilleHomelessCoalition,who instructed
me on the practice of community coalitions and the community health promotion program of the
Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation and the Appalachian Leadership Initiative on Cancer of the
National Cancer Institute, which stimulated and supported the early stages of this work. My
students at the Jepson School suffered through earlier drafts of this article. The
referee-reviewers of this journal provided invaluable criticism and advice.
ADMINISTRATION & SOCIETY, Vol. 30 No. 5, November 1998 569-594 ©
1998 Sage Publications, Inc.
569
570 ADMINISTRATION & SOCIETY / November 1998
other hand, synergy, the possibility of cooperating groups exceeding the
capacity of their aggregated parts, keeps moving some of us to establish and
maintain community coalitions. This article examines reasons for the
difficulty to create and maintain community coalitions to address social and
economic problems. It analyzes different patterns of representation and
participation among groups that may term themselves grassroots.
Thesedifferentpatternsofrepresentationandparticipationaffectdecision making
within each group, which may, in turn, present problems for decision making
in the coalition. This difference is part of other, more fundamental
differences among groups about community change and
empowerment.Thesedifferencesdistinguishcommunity-basedgroupsfromone
another.
Far from being an issue of semantics, these diverse meanings express
different political and social purposes and processes that affect the
capacityofgroupstotrusteachotherandtocooperate.Thesedifferencesdonot
imply that some purposes and processes are better than others. They do
spelloutthedividinglinesamongcommunity-basedorganizations,which
uniteandseparatethem;adiversityofapproachesamongcommunitycoalitions;
and the narrow common ground on which to build the broadest coalitions.
The descriptions, analysis, and theories of this article straddle the
boundaries of several disciplines in addition to social policy and
community organizing. Community psychology has addressed the concept
of empowerment with much more care than it has the concepts of
participation and representation. On the other hand, the social sciences
have often
examinedtherelatedconceptsofpowerandpowerless,representationand
participation, without discussion of empowerment. Indeed, Benjamin
Barber’s(1984)onlyreferencetoempowermentinhisoften-citeddiscussion of
participation is placed in quotation marks, perhaps to suggest his
skepticism about the term (p. 235). Thus, each set of disciplinary analysts
assumesagreatdealaboutthemattersonwhichtheothergrouplabors.By
explicating and relating concepts of representation, participation,
community change, and empowerment, this article offers a theoretical
model of the problems and possibilities of grassroots policies and their
implications for different forms of empowerment; it borrows from several
disciplinesandhopestocontributetoasynthesis.Thismayhelpresearchersby
providing an organizational framework and a common, clearer language to
distinguish different organizations and different meanings of the same
terms. This may help practitioners to understand and to explain to one
another the problems of collaboration entailed in their different
Couto / POLICIES OF EMPOWERMENT 571
approaches to policy, programs, community, and resource allocation. Thus,
this article straddles disciplines and the even wider gap between researchers
and practitioners.
REPRESENTATION AND PARTICIPATION
Grassroots policies, in some instances, means any program carried out by
people not based in Washington, D.C. For others, however, the litmus test of
grassroots policies is the direct representation and active participation of
people for whom programs are intended (Center for Community
Change,1992).Delineatingamonggrassrootspoliciesbeginswithdifferentiating
among forms of representation and participation in groups, organizations,
and programs.
A. Alexander Chauncey (1967) suggested a useful distinction among
three types of representation: technical, modal, and sociopolitical. Technical
representatives have special knowledge, real or ascribed, about a group.
They are not members of a group but speak on its behalf. Service providers
or academicians, for example, may “represent” a group such as the young or
the homeless in the sense of speaking about them in public hearings or
before policy makers. Modal representatives have some demographic
characteristic in common with a group—income, age, race,
gender,orstatus,forexample,healthcareconsumer—thatothersinterpret
asqualificationtorepresentagroup.Bothoftheseformsofrepresentation are
indirect.
In direct forms of sociopolitical representation, people act for
themselvesorasdelegatesforsomeorganizedgrouporaportionofagroupfor
whom they speak and to whom they are accountable. Direct representatives
may have modal characteristics or technical knowledge as well. Homeless
people, for example, speaking at a public meeting as delegates of a shelter or
an organized group, serve as direct and modal representatives. Their
technical knowledge will vary according to their experience and formal and
informal education. We may distinguish between direct and indirect modal
representatives by the process by which they were selected. Modal
representatives chosen by the group members they resemble are much more
likely to maintain an element of direct representation by mechanisms of
accountability than modal representatives who are chosen by the group in
which they participate.
We gained better understanding of the variety of participatory forms when
the forms of direct representation increased in the 1960s because of
572 ADMINISTRATION & SOCIETY / November 1998
Citizen control Delegated power Degrees of citizen power Full participation Partnership
Placation Consultation Degrees of tokenism Partial participation Informing
Therapy Manipulation Degrees of control by others Nonparticipation
Figure 1: A Ladder of Citizen Participation
policies of maximum feasible participation and the social movements. Sherry
R. Arnstein (1969) assembled a ladder of participation that extended from
citizen control down to manipulation. In between were degrees of effective
and ineffective participation. The gradations of citizen participation
permitted Arnstein to cut through the hyperbole of strident demands for
participation, for example, “student power,” and the gamut of confusing
responses, for example, administration-appointed
studentrepresentativestouniversitycommittees.Theladderimagedifferentiates
degrees of influence and power in the various levels of participation. Her
ladder of participation is represented in Figure 1. The three top rungs of
participation entail degrees of power, and the next three entail
degreesofrecognitionthatimplysomepower.Thelasttworungs,therapy and
manipulation, are forms of control by those in authority and of
nonparticipation by those served by programs.
CHANGE AT THE GRASSROOTS
The work of Janice Perlman delineates varieties among grassroots
organizations by their purpose. She identified 32 “direct action”
grassroots associations and distinguished them by their range of issues
(multiple or single) and by geographic focus (multistate, single state,
regional, citywide, or neighborhood). What associations had in common,
however, was a focus on collective action regarding their members’
social, economic, and physical welfare through (a) demands directed at
thepublicandprivateinstitutionscontrollingselectedgoodsandservices, (b)
electoral strategies to take over the institutions, and/or (c) initiation of
Couto / POLICIES OF EMPOWERMENT 573
alternative arrangements to cope with the needs of the populations that those
institutions fail to meet (Perlman, 1976).
ThosegroupswithaprimaryfocusonPerlman’sfirstandsecondcharacteristics
we will call grassroots groups and attribute to them a preference for
community organizing. Community organizing mobilizes resources to
acquire new or improved services from others or to require that some other
group stop some harmful action. It addresses power initially and directly and
demands that someone do or not do something. Community organizing is
also collective action rather than individual action. It risks conflict with those
from whom action is demanded. It entails an involuntary transfer of skills,
information, or resources. Increased credit for home mortgages, improved
police protection, additional recreational programs, for example, require that
some administrators do something they might not ordinarily do.
Those groups with a primary focus on Perlman’s third characteristic,
alternative arrangements, we will call grassroots services and attribute to
themapreferenceforcommunitydevelopment.Communitydevelopment entails
the mobilization of resources for the provision of a service by the group
mobilizing the resources, not someone else. The transfers involved are
services for those in need, and they are voluntary. The emphasis in
community development is on a voluntary transfer of resources.
Mark Dyen (1989) further distinguishes among the grassroots
organizations. He refers to grassroots groups as aggressive forms of social
change. These groups do not provide services but work directly for
transfer of resources to their members and people like them. Local
chapters of
ACORNortheIndustrialArtsFoundation(IAF),forexample,offermembers
direct representation and full participation in the activities of the
organization. Grassroots services, such as a domestic violence shelter or
homeless shelter, are single-issue organizations with clients, rather than
members, who compose a community of need. These groups provide
services,astheirnamessuggest.Theirconstituentsparticipatefullyinthe
services of the group with direct representation. Dyen refers to grassroots
services as aggressive forms of social work. Both grassroots groups and
grassroots services depend on grassroots organizations to conduct
politicalactionfortheirbenefitatabroaderlevel,citywideorstatewide.Grassroo
ts organizations of grassroots groups, though still primarily pursuing the
acquisition of services and regulatory practices from others, are more
likelytodevelopandencouragetheprovisionofsomealternativeservices by
their members or under their members’ directions. For example, a
574 ADMINISTRATION & SOCIETY / November 1998
grassrootsorganizationoflocalenvironmentalgrassrootsgroupsmaydisseminate
information and conduct training to assist local environmental grassroots
groups to begin monitoring a suspected stream for pollution. On the other
hand, grassroots organizations of grassroots services are more likely to
advocate for political changes. A statewide organization of
domesticviolenceshelters,forexample,ismorelikelytodemandchanges in
public policy, including public support for shelters, than its individual
members.
Other community-based organizations and programs are less likely to
embrace change efforts of grassroots groups and grassroots organizations
andmuchmorelikelytoemphasizethethirdofPerlman’sthreecharacteristics,nam
elytoinitiatealternativearrangementstocopewiththeneedsof a particular group.
To use Dyen’s (1989) distinction again, some community-based programs
are aggressive forms of social change, and others are aggressive forms of
social work.
Jack Rothman (1968) suggested another distinction lurking behind change
strategies among community-based organizations. Community
organizing,whichweattributetograssrootsgroupsandgrassrootsorganizations,
views some groups as victims of other more powerful groups and the
interests of the groups as largely incompatible. The remainder of
community-based programs pursues community development, rather
thancommunityorganizing,andattemptstofindasetofcompatibleinterests
among groups that serve those in need and without power. Change as
community development is portrayed in the self-interest of powerful
groups.Domesticviolenceshelters,forexample,mayprovidesocialservice
agencies ad hoc outreach services and additional help in assisting clients
with acquiring eligibility for public forms of assistance rather than make
demands on these agencies. In practice, these differences of organizing and
development are matters of degree rather than kind. Nonetheless, they may
develop into fundamental differences among groups over redistributive and
distributive justice and the social origins of social problems.
EMPOWERMENT
Different change strategies foster different approaches to empowerment,
of which there is an incredibly wide variety. In 1992, in the
aftermathofriotsinLosAngeles,theBushadministrationpromisedthenation a
set of policies that would empower people in the inner cities and other
Couto / POLICIES OF EMPOWERMENT 575
areasofchronicpoverty.Inthesameyear,theNikeathleticshoecompany also
promised to empower people who wore Nike shoes. Policy analysts
andpublicadministratorsweighingbothclaimsasnationalpolicyoptions might
have suggested that the least costly means to empower people would be the
purchase of athletic shoes. Such a decision would typify the current
confusion over empowerment.
Some foundations and government agencies have been more intentional
about specific forms of empowerment and have used community
coalitionstoachievethem.TheCampaignforHumanDevelopmentofthe United
States Catholic Bishops’ Relief Fund is certainly one of the nation’s oldest
efforts at grassroots coalition building and empowerment. Aimed specifically
at problems of poverty, the Campaign for Human Development evokes the
traditions of maximum feasible participation of the War on Poverty. This
approach is different from the broader, publicprivate partnerships of the
recent programs of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, the Kaiser Family
Foundation, the Pew Charitable Trusts, and the Kellogg Foundation. These
programs encourage new arrangements among institutional providers of
services. Within the federal Alcohol, Drug Abuse, and Mental Health
Administration, both the office for Substance Abuse Prevention and the
System Service Improvement
programsupportcommunity-basedcoalitionstoconducttheirprograms.The
outreachprogramsoftheNationalCancerInstitutehavealsoattemptedto
incorporate African-American, Appalachian, and Hispanic community
leaders in coalitions.
A survey of the discussions of the term empowerment within these efforts
offers a wide array of factors and proposed outcomes in diverse contexts.
Some discussions treat empowerment as the delegation of tasks and the
provision of opportunities for input. Other discussions go beyond delegation
and look for new forms of decision making and accountability as measures
of empowerment. In social work, there are microanalyses of
empowermentandmacroanalyses,aswellasstudiesoftheinterfaceofthe
two(Gutierrez,1990).Educationadministratorsdiscussschoolempowermentinte
rmsofdecentralizeddecisionmaking,school-basedstaffdevelopment,andsite-ba
sedmanagement(Glickman,1990).Arangeofmeanings for empowerment abide
among these discussions.
Social scientists most often whittle empowerment to various single
measures. Political scientists, for example, measure empowerment in
termsofincreasedpoliticalparticipationofsomegroupsandtheelectoral
success of racial and ethnic minorities’candidates, who are modal
representatives (Hanks, 1987; Parker, 1990). One recent study examined
this
576 ADMINISTRATION & SOCIETY / November 1998
form of empowerment for its effect on social welfare, for example, infant
mortality rates among African Americans (Bobo & Gilliam, 1990). Other
studies look for empowerment in the realms of everyday politics of work,
gender,andcommunityandtheprocessesbywhichpeopleprepareforand
undertake direct and organized action for some common benefit (Bachrach
& Botwinick, 1992; Bookman & Morgen, 1988; Fisher, 1992; Riessman &
Boyte, 1989).
More than other groups, community psychologists have examined
empowerment fully and explicitly in empirical and theoretical studies. Julian
Rappaport (1985) suggested that empowerment is the organizing concept for
the field. This discipline’s discussions suggest the central place of
participation in empowerment (Price, 1990). Charles Kieffer (1984) even
defined empowerment as “multidimensional participatory
competence.”Whatwehavecalledgrassrootsgroupsandgrassrootsservicesareth
emostfrequentcontextofcommunitypsychology’sdiscussions of
empowerment. These discussions assume direct sociopolitical representation
and full participation of group members (Prestby, Wandersman, Florin, Rich,
& Chavis, 1990). The change orientation among these groups, as developed
within community psychology, is what we have termed community
development rather than organizing (Chavis & Wandersman, 1990; Perkins,
Florin, Wandersman, & Chavis, 1990).
Expectedly,theliteratureinthisfieldoffersconflictingperspectiveson
empowerment. Some findings (Prestby et al., 1990) suggest participation
promotes empowerment whereas other findings (Chavis & Wandersman,
1990) suggest that people participate in grassroots groups depending on
the degree of their sense of empowerment. Obviously, rather than a neat
cause and effect relationship, participation and empowerment are in a
reflexive relationship within the literature of community psychology
(Zimmerman, 1990b). Similarly, empowerment is discussed as an
individual trait of competence and as a “person-environment fit” that
extends beyond the individual to include a person’s relation with
“environmental influences; organizational factors; or social, cultural, and
political contexts” (Zimmerman, 1990a, p. 173). That relationship may be
a combination of psychological empowerment and political powerlessness
if that
personunderstandsthechoicesavailablewithinthepositionofpowerlessness(S
cott,1990;Zimmerman,1990b).Inadditiontoindividualandpsychological
forms of empowerment, there is political empowerment “by which
individuals gain mastery or control over their own lives and
democraticparticipationinthelifeoftheircommunity”(Zimmerman&Rappap
ort, 1988, p. 726).
Couto / POLICIES OF EMPOWERMENT 577
This literature also portrays a wide variety of empowering roles for
professionals. One researcher emphasizes the need for professionals to
choose who should be empowered and to what end (Price, 1990); this
implies the ability of professionals and policy makers to do so. Other
discussions of empowerment emphasize breaking dependence and trust in
experts (Levin & Idler, 1981; Pilisuk & Minkler, 1985; Rappaport, 1985;
Riessman, 1983; Zola, 1987), thus implying that people empower themselves
when they are able to counter the influence of professionals and experts.
Charles Kieffer (1984) offers considerable clarification and synthesis for
the study of empowerment. He identifies three elements of
empowermentfoundinmanydiscussionsandsuggeststhatempowermentisacom
binationofpsychologicalandpoliticalfactors:thedevelopmentofamore positive
self-concept, the development of more critical or analytical
understandingofapoliticalorsocialenvironment,andthedevelopmentof
collective resources for social and political action (Kieffer, 1984). Likewise,
Ann Bookman and Sandra Morgen (1988) emphasize empowerment as a
process. “Empowerment begins when they [the women of their study]
change their ideas about the causes of their powerlessness, when
theyrecognizethesystemicforcesthatoppressthem,andwhentheyactto change
the conditions of their lives” (p. 4).
Social scientists will recognize in both descriptions of empowerment what
C. Wright Mills (1959) called the sociological imagination; the realization
of a person or a group that a condition, problem, or need is not theirs only
but that others have it as well. Practitioners will recognize the
transformationofagroupwhenitsmembersbegintounderstandthattheir
seemingly individual problems have common origins. Empowerment
continueswhenindividualsormembersofagroupbegintorelatetoothers in new
ways, initially as supportive friends, precisely because of their
commonconditions,problems,oraspirations;thisisaspecialemphasisof
grassrootsservices.Empowermentcontinuesifpeopleactonthecommon
grounds they find among themselves to discover previously
unacknowledgedcompetenciesamongthemthathelpthemdealwithacommonc
ondition. Resources of the groups increase as they acquire them externally
and equally important as group members discover new competencies
among themselves to deal with a particular problem. Scanning the broad
horizon of discussions of empowerment one finds a common element of
the transfer of information, skills, and resources that improve the
decision-making power of individuals or groups and enhance the group’s
578 ADMINISTRATION & SOCIETY / November 1998
ability to take collective action. Transfers may be to an individual primarily
or to a group primarily and may be voluntary or involuntary.
Various forms of empowerment relate to the distinctions among patterns
of representation, participation, and strategies of change of
community-based organizations. For example, the empowerment
strategiesofself-helpgroupsorgrassrootsservicesinvolveindividualsasservice
clients primarily and organizational participants secondarily. Grassroots
services transfer skills and information directly to individuals and intend to
enable them to deal with a problem. This form of empowerment stresses the
need of individuals to gain control of themselves and the factors of their
environment that affect their day-to-day living. Although there are
numerous characteristics that define the empowerment of grassroots
services, the most important of them center around
selfdetermination,mutuality,andabottom-uporientationtohierarchy.Grassroot
s services, like community development, pursue cooperative and voluntary
transfers of resources.
Another form of direct empowerment is organized action for group
benefit.Thisformofempowermentapproachesindividualsassociopolitical,
direct representatives of groups and seeks to transfer information, skills, and
resources, sometimes involuntarily, through organized action of the group for
its members’ common benefit. The group’s representational patterns may be
modal as well, residency in a neighborhood, for example. It becomes
sociopolitical when some problem related to that modal characteristic is
attributed to external forces. For example, neighborhood residents may
protest the lack of public services available to
them,suchasgarbagecollection,libraries,transportation,andsoon.This form of
empowerment benefits individuals implicitly as part of a process that
encourages organized action to acquire new resources for a group.
This form of direct group empowerment assumes a world of conflicting
interests, just as community organizing does. Groups pursuing this form of
empowerment are more likely to understand themselves as a social
movement of political, social, and economic change rather than a self-help
group. Naturally, this form of empowerment most likely also involves the
involuntary transfer of information, control, and resources from one group
to another; the prospect of an involuntary transfer of resources through
conflict; and a challenge to those in charge of those
resources.Thispoliticalformofempowerment,therefore,alsochallenges and
explicitly demystifies authority much more than self-help efforts. It fosters
new attitudes toward authority and self. Specifically, these groups are
more likely to interpret those in authority, including experts, as part of
Couto / POLICIES OF EMPOWERMENT 579
the problem to be solved. Part of their implicit empowerment as
individualsistheiracquisitionofwillingnessandconfidencetochallengeofficials
about their role in causing or continuing the needs of a group.
A FRAMEWORK OF COMMUNITY-BASED
ORGANIZATIONS, CHANGE, AND
EMPOWERMENT
Thesemyriaddistinctionsofferaframeworkofrepresentationandparticipation
patterns, processes of change, and forms of empowerment that distinguish
community-based organizations. First, Arnstein’s (1969) ladder of
participation permits us to better understand the nominal distinctions of
Chauncey’s (1967) representational patterns. Figure 2 relates the hierarchy in
Arnstein’s forms of participation that correspond to Chauncey’s forms of
representation. It offers the premise that the higher forms of participation
generally involve sociopolitical and delegated representatives from
participating groups. The partial forms of participation and its subterfuges
generally involve modal and technical representatives of groups.
The differences and patterns of participation and representation have their
counterparts in differences and patterns among community change strategies
and forms of empowerment. Relating these terms permits us to immediately
cut through some confusion about grassroots policies and programs. The
vague term bottom-up approach, for example, describes
programswithdirectrepresentationandfullparticipationofpeoplewhom a
program is intended to serve or whom a program will affect. Top-down
approaches,ontheotherhand,areprogramsinwhichgroupsareconsumers.
Technical representatives most likely speak for the intended group about a
policy, along with a few modal representatives. At an extreme, a top-down
approach breaks down to co-optation and a process of institutional
self-interest and self-defense.
Some forms of empowerment coincide with top-down approaches.
Empowerment may be psychosymbolic and intended to give people
increased self-esteem or the ability to cope with an unchanged set of
circumstances. Psychosymbolic empowerment more often occurs among
people with no or only partial participation and indirect representation.
These groups are developed or helped, rather than organized for action of
their own. Generally, psychosymbolic empowerment has an emphasis on
individual behavior rather than collective action. Women in a domestic
580 ADMINISTRATION & SOCIETY / November 1998
violence shelter are helped to regain a position from which they can help
themselves and their children. Psychosymbolic empowerment, by itself, does
not alter the conditions of a community or an individual. It enables people to
handle an unchanged situation better. It enables people to change conditions
modestly and temporarily. A riverbank trash clean-up, for example, results in
a real but only temporary change in the environment, even as it instructs
people that human beings can degrade and improve their environment.
Psychopolitical empowerment entails a change in the distribution of
resources or in the action of others; the cessation of a plant’s discharge of
effluent with heavy metals into a river, for example, or a restraining order to
protect a battered woman from an abusive spouse. Psychopolitical
empowerment,likecommunityorganizing,entailsdemandsthatsomeone else
stop what impinges on an individual or a group. It moves from stress
management to reducing the sources of stress. There is more group emphasis
in psychopolitical empowerment than in psychosymbolic
empowerment.Otherpeopleshareinthegainsofanindividualoragroup. A tenants
organization that manages to improve the heat and other
qualitiesofanapartmentbuildingsharesthoseimprovementswitheveryonein the
building. A community-based organization that acquires a breakfast program
for children over the objections of school authorities benefits all eligible
children and not just those related to group members.
The variations in the related concepts of participation, representation,
community change, and empowerment permit us to identify nine distinct
community-basedorganizations.Membersofsmallgroups,suchasatenantsorg
anizationoraself-helpgroup,maintaintheabilitytoactforthemselves as direct,
sociopolitical representatives. We will call the first set of neighborhood
groups grassroots groups, and the set of self-help groups grassroots
services. A statewide or citywide organization of such small
groupshasamuchmoredifficulttimetoprovideeachmemberdirectrepresentati
on as well as full participation in public hearings and in the dayto-day
operations of the organization. In such instances, annual membership
meetings, elected boards, and other mechanisms provide some
degreeofdirectrepresentationandfullparticipationwithintheconstraints of
size, distance, and operational efficiency. For example, IAF, ACORN, and
similar community-organizing efforts incorporate numerous neighborhood
groups in a citywide organization through annual meetings that establish
agendas to which staff are accountable (Boyte, 1990; Delgado, 1985).
Similarly, domestic violence shelters have formed state organizations.
Often, some board members act as modal representatives of the cli-
Couto / POLICIES OF EMPOWERMENT 581
Ladder of Citizen Forms of Strategies of Forms of Participation Representation
Community Change Empowerment
Full Community Participation Direct Organizing Psychopolitical Citizen control
Sociopolitical People as victims; Changed relations Delegated power Delegated (selected
conflicting interests, among actors and new Partnership modal and technical changes in power,
allocation of resources.
representatives) control, and influence Individual and group changes. New
forms of decision making. Additional information and new knowledge.
Partial Community Participation Indirect Development Psychosymbolic Placation Modal
People as clients; Changes in individual Consultation Technical common interests; and group
attitudes Informing (Selected modal changes in forms of within an unchanged
and techical participation without system of decision representatives)
changes in decision making and
making resource allocation for example, coping,
stress management
Nonparticipation Indirect Co-opted Consultation Therapy Modal
People as consumers; Manipulation Technical common interests;
new expanded roles as
consumers
Figure 2: Comparison of Models of Participation, Representation, Strategies of Change,
and Forms of Empowerment
ents served through requirements that its members be formerly battered
spouses. However, the degree of direct representation will vary according to
the selection process of these modal representatives and whether they feel
primarily accountable to the board or to the clients of shelters. These
organizations of grassroots groups and services we will call grassroots
organizations.
Separate from these grassroots groups, services, and organizations are
community agencies that have an organizational base apart from the
residential community or a community of need that is served. These
agencies—Boys Clubs, public health clinics, schools, and so on—often
express locally a corporate structure, such as the city or regional office,
582 ADMINISTRATION & SOCIETY / November 1998
health departments, school systems, and so on that have decision-making
structures with no or little direct representation or full participation of
peopleservedbytheagencies.Thesecommunityagenciesmayhaveadvisory
boards of local residents or clients. The boards may have full
participationwithdecisionmakingoverasetoflocalmattersbutonlypartialparticip
ation in matters determined by the corporate structure of the local
agency.Typically,full-timeprofessionalstafforvolunteersrecruitedfrom outside
the communities of place or issue conduct the community-based programs of
these agencies.
Inadditiontothepermanentpresenceofagencies,corporatestructures
outsideaneighborhoodorgroupmayconductoutreachprogramstocommunities
ordinarily not served by the organizations. Health fairs of local hospitals and
a free-standing church-supported community health center
exemplifythisformofcommunityservice.Theseprogramsgenerallyfeature
larger degrees of modal and technical representation and partial participation
of the groups for whom the services are intended. These
communityagenciesmaybewithinlow-incomecommunitiesbutbecomepart of
them to the degree they emulate the representation and participation
patternsthatcharacterizegrassrootsgroups,services,andorganizations.
Voluntary organizations and voluntary services fall within the grassroots
category, but with far less representation and participation of lowincome
community residents than grassroots services. The American
HeartAssociation,theAmericanCancerSociety,andothersimilarvoluntary
associations depend heavily on volunteers outside of the community of
need or residence to provide very limited amounts of direct service. A
majoramountofthetimeofstaffisdevotedtocoordinatingvolunteersand raising
funds. Decision makers within voluntary associations are less
likelytobethepeopleatgreatestriskfortheconditionthattheassociation
addresses,forexample,cancer,andmuchmorelikelytobecontributorsto
associations or technical representatives of the people to be served. Yet,
chambersofcommerce,medicalsocieties,associationsofteachers,social
workers, and other professional associations find themselves embraced by
some policy makers as integral members of grassroots efforts. Clearly, the
intended beneficiaries of programs in which these voluntary and
professional associations may participate have technical representation
primarily and no significant degree of full participation. There are
exceptions. Legal Services programs, for example, may include modal
representativesofclientsserved.LegalServicesexemplifieswhatwewill call
an association of professional assistance more than assistance of a
professional association.
Couto / POLICIES OF EMPOWERMENT 583
Figure3arrangesthenineformsofcommunity-basedorganizationson a
vertical axis that extends from direct representation and full participation of
the intended beneficiaries of a program or policy to indirect representation
and partial participation of the intended beneficiaries. The horizontal axis
extends from community organizing to community development. In the
quadrant where direct representation and full participation coincide with
community organizing, we place direct, group psychopolitical empowerment.
We find grassroots groups, such as tenants organizations and local chapters
of grassroots organizations, in this quadrant. In the quadrant of direct
representation and full participation and community development, we place
direct, individual psychosymbolic empowerment. We find grassroots services
in that quadrant. Grassroots organizations have grassroots groups and
services as their members and provide them direct representation and full
participation. Grassroots
groupsandgrassrootsorganizationsarethemostlikelycommunity-based
organizations to engage in community organizing primarily and direct,
collective empowerment. Grassroots services are likely to conduct
community development efforts primarily, community organizing
secondarily, and to focus on empowering individuals rather than groups
directly.
Theneedformoreresourcesoftenleadssimilargrassrootsservices,for example,
food banks, to form a grassroots organization. Grassroots organizations
that are formed from grassroots services or that establish them also
transform their political nature. A statewide association of domestic
violence shelters, for example, does not offer services on the state level.
Such a service would not only replicate the services of local shelters but
detract from the purpose of looking after the interests of local shelters and
arguing for policies that might address or alleviate the
problemsofclientsoftheshelters.Specifically,thestatewidetaskforceagainst
domestic violence in Tennessee achieved a state fee on marriage licenses
to support domestic violence shelters and conducted training for police
officers across the state. Such action benefits all the services that it
represents, involves those services in organized action for group benefit
rather thantheself-helpeffortsthatcharacterizelocalservices,andenableslocal
services to acquire resources they may not have acquired individually.
Numerous other examples, for instance, community health centers and
support groups of women or of people with a common illness, illustrate
thistransformationfromcommunitydevelopmenttocommunityorganizing as
grassroots services form grassroots organizations. Grassroots organizations
of grassroots services are more likely to do more
communityorganizingthantheirmembers.Similarly,grassrootsorganizations
of
Direct representation and full participation
of intended beneficiaries of grassroots policies
Direct, group Direct, individual
psychopolitical empowerment psychosymbolic empowerment
Tenants rights organizations, local Twelve-step groups, transitional housing
chapters of grassroots organizations programs
Grassroots groups
(membership groups, multi-issue and community of
residence or single-issue membership groups)
Grassroots services
(single-issue, community of need, client groups)
Grassroots organizations
(federations of grassroots groups or services with formal
corporate ties)
Community Organizing Community Development
Acquisition of services Provision of services and
and regulatory practice regulatory practice by
from others themselves or from others
voluntarily
Community coalitions
Associations of professional assistance
(legal services, Physicians for Social Responsibility)
Community agencies
584
(churches, schools, health clinics)
Voluntary services
Voluntary organizations
Outreach programs
(programs of institutions)
Professional associations
Advocacy for group Advocacy for individual
psychopolitical psychosymbolic
empowerment empowerment
(reform of public policy and (adaptation of programs to
programs) groups with special needs)
Figure 3: Community-Based Organizations Arranged by Patterns of Representation and Participation, Strategies of Change, and Forms of
Empowerment
585
586 ADMINISTRATION & SOCIETY / November 1998
grassrootsgroupsaremorelikelythantheirmembergroupstodocommunity
development.
Figure 3 suggests that staff members of community agencies may take on
a broader range of change efforts than their agencies. Social workers, for
example, may organize an association to protect existing resources or to
acquire more resources for community mental health centers. Their
professional associations are not usually community-based organizations
because they are technical representatives of affected groups with no
participation by representatives of these groups or, at best, only partial
participationofmembersofthosegroups.Theycan,however,beveryimportant
elements of community coalitions as advocates for additional resources for
services. Thus, they are represented in Figure 3. Associations of professional
assistance, however, for example, Legal Aid and Physicians for Social
Responsibility, are more likely than professional associations to advocate for
collective empowerment of state prisoners,
nursinghomeresidents,orMedicaidrecipientsthanastatebarormedical
association.
TheresultinggridinFigure3suggestsafitoforganizationalcharacteristicsandc
hangestrategies.Itpermitsustodistinguishagrassrootsgroup from a grassroots
organization in terms of representation and participation, the former being
more direct; and in terms of a change process, the
formerconcentratingonorganizingmorethandevelopment.Thehorizontal axis
in Figure 3 is only a segment. It continues to the right to top-down
approaches where planning, token representation, and nonparticipation
areparameters.Similarly,thecontinuumcontinuestothelefttoaplaceof individual
or unorganized protest and inchoate demands for change. In practice, what
distinguishes organizing from protest is the demand for resources or policies
to do something about a problem and the degree of specific proposals for
transfer of resources.
This framework suggests how community-based organizations may relate
to each other in grassroots policies of empowerment (Zimmerman, 1990a,
p. 172) and strategies of political change. For example, establishing a
shelter for domestic violence victims is an example of community
development. Mobilizing those shelters to change state and local laws
regarding domestic violence or to acquire public resources to support the
sheltersareexamplesofcommunityorganizing.Theformerislikelytobe the
work of a grassroots service and the latter the work of a grassroots
organization. Professional associations, associations of professional
assistance, and community agencies may voluntarily assist a domestic
Couto / POLICIES OF EMPOWERMENT 587
violence shelter as outreach of their own program. They may also join
community coalitions to advocate for the victims of domestic violence.
COMMUNITY-BASED COALITIONS
This framework of community-based organizations suggests some of the
constraints in the formation of community coalitions. Conversely, the
distinctions among community-based organizations suggest the most likely
points for them to coalesce. A coalition is likely to pursue the issues and
processes of change and empowerment of its members and to replicate their
dominant patterns of representation and participation. Membership in the
coalition, once a change orientation is chosen, will be self-selective
depending on members’forms of representation, participation, and
orientation to change and empowerment.
Figure4depictsthreedifferentcommunitycoalitions.CoalitionAcoalesces
around common tendencies toward direct representation and full
participation, direct collective psychopolitical empowerment, and the
acquisition of services and regulatory practices from others. Such a
coalitionhasmanyofthecharacteristicsofagrassrootsorganization,including
strategies that combine organizing and development. Coalition C, on the
otherhand,bringstogethercommunity-basedorganizationsthatgravitate
towardindirectrepresentationandpartialparticipationofthepeopletobe served,
advocacy for individual psychosymbolic empowerment, and the
voluntaryprovisionofservicesbythemselvesorothers.Thissortofcoalition has
many of the characteristics of a voluntary service.
In contrast to these two relatively homogenous forms of coalitions,
CoalitionBoffersnarrowerpossibilitiesforcoalescing.CoalitionBcombines
differences in representation, participation, and decision-making styles
among the community-based organizations. They reach grassroots
groupsthroughgrassrootsorganizations.TheyreachtheelementsofCoalition C
except through community agencies. Coalition B shares the ambiguous
nature of community agencies, which generally hold together despite a
tension in patterns of representation and participation, change strategies, and
forms of empowerment.
Simple differences in decision making offer an impediment to Coalition B.
A director of a voluntary organization or outreach program
ordinarilywillhavemorepowertodecideacourseofactionforanagencythan a
leader of a community group. The latter, without clear delegation, may
588 ADMINISTRATION & SOCIETY / November 1998
feel compelled to bring any proposed course of action back to the group for
each member’s consideration and the group’s endorsement. Needless to say,
such procedures take time and frustrate full-time staff members of other
community-based organizations, who may press for immediate action. In
reply, grassroots groups and services may protest that the larger
organizations try to railroad coalition members or to ram policies down the
coalition’s throat. Frustration or distrust may follow different
decision-making styles rooted in forms of representation and participation.
This creates additional tensions within a coalition until the diversity of
decision-making styles is curtailed along some segment of the vertical axis
of Coalition B. Grassroots groups are much more likely to prefer
decision-making styles in Coalition A, just as directors of voluntary services,
organizations, outreach programs, and professional associations are more
likely to prefer their own, which Coalition C is likely to replicate.
Similarly,Figure4portrayseachcommunity-basedorganizationalong a
segment of the community organizing-to-community development spectrum.
The length of the segment suggests the potential overlap of change
orientation among different community-based groups. For example,
associations of professional assistance and community agencies run
approximately the same length while grassroots organizations overlap with
the voluntary sector only through a portion of community agencies. Coalition
B is in the middle and has a limited common ground for grassroots
organizations, services, associations of professional assistance, and
community agencies. It is much more likely that such coalitions will
aggregate organizations with more similar representation and
participationpatternsandorientationtochangeandempowerment,ascoalitionsA
and C do.
Thebreadthandlengthofcommunitycoalitionsvaryinversely.Ifacommunity
coalition attempts to include the full range of all nine communitybased
organizations, its capacity for action, that is, community organizing or
community development, is very restricted. Excluding one category or
another of community-based groups moves a coalition into a homogeneous
pattern of representation and participation among its members and
establishes more consensus for appropriate action among coalition members.
The more inclusive the membership of a coalition is, the more difficult
selecting a change strategy for the coalition may become.
The space of Coalition B in Figure 4 suggests the precise difficulty of
cooperation among community-based groups. The range of
representationalandparticipatorypatternsandchangestrategiesislikelytoincre
ase with diversity of group members. The more diversity within a coalition
of
Couto / POLICIES OF EMPOWERMENT 589
Figure 4: Community Coalitions Arranged by Range of Patterns of Representation and
Participation, Strategies of Change, and Forms of Empowerment of Community-Based
Organizations
community-basedgroups,thenarrowertherangeofpermissibleaction.It
isthispinpointaccuracyrequiredofCoalitionBthatexplains,inpart,why grand
schemes conceived in Washington fall short at the local level and
whylocalcitizenactiondoesnotaggregatetoatransformationofnational
politics. Programs conceived in Washington that intend to empower a
group of people most often fall short of assisting that group’s acquisition
ofservicesandregulatorypracticefromothersbecausesuchagroup,Coalition A
in Figure 4, seeks redistributive policies, the least preferred form
590 ADMINISTRATION & SOCIETY / November 1998
of public policy in American politics. Occasionally, some federal programs
and national organizations reach grassroots organizations, services, and even
support or foster grassroots groups, but these successful efforts to establish a
Coalition A are exceptional, heroic bureaucracies or redemptive
organizations (Couto, 1989, 1991).
The ordinary reluctance of American politics to engage in redistributive
measures influences the predilection of grassroots policies of community
coalitions for Coalition C. Within these coalitions, there is advocacy of
individual empowerment, far less demand for redistributive policies, and the
opportunity to provide services more efficiently and
aggressively.Becausegrassrootsservicesfallonasegmentofcommunity
developmentcomparabletogroupswithinaCoalitionC,thecoalitionhas the
opportunity to conduct services with or through other service providers.
Occasionally, these coalitions can organize to make demands of
othersaswell.TheNationalBlackLeadershipInitiativeonCancerisacasein point.
Although most members of the coalition fit the descriptions of groups in
Coalition C, the Initiative emulated a grassroots organization when it
demanded that tobacco companies cease advertising aimed at
AfricanAmericans,Uptowncigarettesinparticular.Eveninthisdemand,
however,theempowermentinvolvedwasadvocacyforcollectiveempowerment
of others; in this case, to reduce the likelihood of addiction to an unhealthy
substance (Swan & Goss, 1995). The modal and technical
representationofclientsofthesepoliciesandprogramsmayimprovetheoutcomes
and impacts of programs for clients. The National Commission on AIDS, for
example, criticized the Department of Housing and Urban Development,
home for empowerment policies in the Bush administration, for ignoring the
AIDS housing crisis and in particular for resisting other empowerment
efforts, namely, “almost all efforts of
communitybasedorganizations...tomeetthehousingneedsofpeoplewithHIVdis
ease” (“Fifty Percent With AIDS,” 1997, p. A12).
Differentorientationstochangeandempowermentandpatternsofrepresentatio
nandparticipationinterferewithcommunity-basedgroupscoalescing along
broad dimensions. Obviously, this also precludes forming electoral
coalitions and blocs of votes and hinders the capacity of grassroots groups,
services, and organizations to transform national politics. This would
represent a coalition running the gamut of the two left quadrants of
Figures 3 and 4, direct collective empowerment and advocacy for
theempowermentofothergroups.Infact,onlyCoalitionAwouldhavean
explicit political agenda of change. Coalition C is more likely to appear
apolitical and to conduct community development within the existing
Couto / POLICIES OF EMPOWERMENT 591
arrangement of politics. The Rev. Jesse Jackson attempted to coalesce
grassroots groups, services, and organizations into a national political
movement. Former Democratic presidential candidate Michael Dukakis,
ontheotherhand,viewedsuchgroupsasanimportantbutsmallpartofthe
arithmeticofelectoralvictory(Dyen,1989).Onthelocallevel,grassroots groups
and organizations have shown their political clout and potential. They
formed a bloc of the political power of Harold Washington in Chicago and
provide recruitment and training for elected and appointed political officials
(Dyen, 1989, p. 29). Outcomes such as these, however,
atdifferentlocalitieswillvarydependingonahostofvariables:thepolitical
climate, economic base, public leadership, legislative traditions,
upstate/downstate and/or rural/urban factions, and other particulars that vary
from place to place (Tarr-Whelan, 1989).
Even when successful in achieving new policies, community-based
organizations are transformed by the politics-as-usual they transform. This
happens because forms of representation change and forms of
participationdiminishfromthelocaltothenationallevel(Boyte,1990).This
change is represented in the movement from the upper left quadrant of
Figure4tothelowerleftquadrant,fromdirectcollectiveempowermentto
advocacy for collective empowerment. Environmental groups tie local and
national efforts or organizing and empowerment together, but they also
illustrate the problems in creating politically effective links of local and
national efforts (Wilson, 1989). Most often, rather than coalitions linking the
left quadrants of Figures 3 and 4, we have coalitions within each quadrant
with informal ties between them. Compounding the problem of coalitions
that tie local and national psychopolitical efforts is the emphasis on
alternative policies for the production of services in the bottom left quadrant
while local community organizing and development emphasize improved
delivery of existing services (Miller, 1989).
Perhapsthemostcommonoutcomeofcommunitycoalitionsiscommunity
development. Whatever the membership of community coalitions, their
members voluntarily transfer information, skills, and resources among
themselves. Similarly, community coalitions may produce transfers from one
set of actors to another that would not have happened otherwise.
CONCLUSION
Despite an almost universal faith among Americans in grassroots
approaches, the tenets of that faith are tangled among common terms and
592 ADMINISTRATION & SOCIETY / November 1998
importantdifferences.Researchers,policymakers,andcommunity-based
professionals have several different and valid understandings of grassroots
policies and programs. Grassroots describes a variety of approaches that can
be distinguished by forms of representation and participation, strategies for
change, and approaches to empowerment.
Bycombininganalysisonempowermentfromcommunitypsychology and on
representation, participation, and community change from social science and
policy studies, this article has identified nine distinct community-based
groups that are often lumped together under the term grassroots programs, as
well as four different forms of empowerment strategies, the constellations
within the skies of grassroots policies and
empowerment.Thesimilaritiesamongthesegroupsmakecoalitionbuilding
feasible, but their differences also narrow opportunities for coalition
building.Thediversityamongthegroupscreatestensionsineffortstocollaborate.
This diversity also supports a variety of effective, focused grassroots policies
of empowerment. A common language and a common conceptual framework
for researchers and practitioners alike may improve the chances of effective
and diverse community coalition strategies. This article has sought to
provide that common language and conceptual framework.
REFERENCES
Arnstein, S. R. (1969). A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of American Institute of
Planners, 35(4), 26-34.
Bachrach,P.,&Botwinick,A.(1992).Powerandempowerment:Aradicaltheoryofparticipatory
democracy. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
Barber, B. (1984). Strong democracy: Participatory politics for a new age. Berkeley: University
of California Press.
Bobo,L.,&Gilliam,F.D.,Jr.(1990).Race,sociopoliticalparticipation,andblackempowerment.
American Political Science Review, 84(2), 377-393.
Bookman, A., & Morgen, S. (Eds.). (1988). Women and the politics of empowerment.
Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
Boyte, H. C. (1990). Politics as education. Social policy, 20(4), 35-42. Center for Community
Change. (1992). 25 years of community change. Washington, DC:
Author. Chauncey, A. A. (1967). What does a representative represent? Social Work, 21(1),
5-9. Chavis,D.M.,&Wandersman,A.(1990).Senseofcommunityintheurbanenvironment:A
catalystforparticipationandcommunitydevelopment.AmericanJournalofCommunity
Psychology, 18(1), 55-81.
Couto / POLICIES OF EMPOWERMENT 593
Couto, R. A. (1989). Redemptive organizations and the politics of hope. Clinical Sociology
Review, 7, 64-79.
Couto, R. A. (1991). Heroic bureaucracies. Administration & Society, 23(1), 28-43. Delgado, G.
(1985). Organizing in the movement: The roots and growth of ACORN. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. Dyen, M. (1989). Organize the activists. Social Policy,
19(4), 27-33.
FiftypercentwithAIDSfacehomelessness.(1997,July16).TheLosAngelesTimes,p.A12. Fisher, S.
(1992). Fighting back in Appalachia: Traditions of resistance and change. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. Glickman, C. D. (1990). Pushing school reform to a new
edge: The seven ironies of school
empowerment. Phi Delta Kappan, 72(1), 68-75. Gutierrez, L. M. (1990). Working with
women of color: An empowerment perspective. Social Work, 35(2), 149-153.
Hanks,L.J.(1987).ThestruggleforblackpoliticalempowermentinthreeGeorgiacounties.
Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press. Kieffer, C. H. (1984). Citizen empowerment: A
developmental perspective. Prevention in
Human Services (Studies in Empowerment: Steps Toward Understanding and Action),
3(2-3), 9-36.
Levin, L. S., & Idler, E. L. (1981). The hidden health care system: Mediating structures and
medicine. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.
Miller, S. M. (1989). Consumption or production? Social Policy, 20(1), 44-47. Mills, C. W.
(1959). The sociological imagination. New York: Oxford University Press. Parker, F. (1990).
Black votes count: Political empowerment in Mississippi after 1965.
Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.
Perkins,D.D.,Florin,P.,Wandersman,A.,&Chavis,D.M.(1990).Participationandthesocial and physical environment of residential blocks: Crime and community context.
American Journal of Community Psychology, 18(1), 83-116.
Perlman, J. E. (1976). Grassrooting the system. Social Policy, 6(2), 4-20. Pilisuk, M., &
Minkler, M. (1985). Social support: Economic and political considerations.
Social Policy, 15(3), 6-11. Prestby, J. E., Wandersman, A., Florin, P., Rich, R., & Chavis, D.
(1990). Benefits, costs, incentive management, and participation in voluntary organizations: A means to understanding
and promotion empowerment. American Journal of Community Psychology, 18(1), 117-149.
Price,R.H.(1990).Whitherparticipationandempowerment?AmericanJournalofCommunity
Psychology, 18(1), 163-167.
Rappaport, J. (1985). The power of empowerment language. Social Policy, 16(2), 15-21.
Riessman, F. (1983). The new politics of empowerment. Social Policy, 14(2), 2-3. Riessman, F.
(1985). New dimensions in self-help. Social Policy, 15(3), 2-4.
Riessman,F.,&Boyte,H.C.(1989).Thenewpopulism:Thepoliticsofempowerment.Philadelphia: Temple University Press. Riessman, F., & Gartner, A. (1987). The surgeon general
and the self-help ethos.Social Policy, 18(2), 23-25. Rothman, J. (1968). Three models of community organizing practice. In
Social work practice (pp. 16-47). New York: Columbia University Press. Scott, J. C. (1990). Domination and
the arts of resistance: Hidden transcripts. New Haven,
CT: Yale University Press.
594 ADMINISTRATION & SOCIETY / November 1998
Speer, P. W., & Chavis, D. M. (1995). Community coalition theory and rural practice. In
R.A.Couto(Ed.),Sowingseedsinthemountains:Community-basedcoalitionsforcancer
prevention and control (pp. 138-155). Washington, DC: National Cancer Institute.
Swan, J., & Goss, K. F. (1995). Lessons from other community-based programs of the National
Cancer Institute. In R. A. Couto (Ed.), Sowing seeds in the mountains:
Community-basedcoalitionsforcancerpreventionandcontrol(pp.156-179).Washington, DC:
National Cancer Institute.
Tarr-Whelan, L. (1989). Progressive federalism. Social Policy, 19(4), 23-27. Wilson, L. (1989).
Moving toward a movement. Social Policy, 19(4), 53-57.
Zimmerman,M.(1990a).Takingaimonempowermentresearch:Onthedistinctionbetween
individualandpsychologicalconceptions.AmericanJournalofCommunityPsychology, 18(1),
169-177.
Zimmerman,M.(1990b).Towardatheoryoflearnedhopefulness:Astructuralmodelanalysisofpartici
pationandempowerment.JournalofResearchinPersonality,24(1),71-86.
Zimmerman, M., & Rappaport, J. (1988). Citizen participation, perceived control, and
psychological empowerment. American Journal of Community Psychology, 16(5), 725750.
Zola,I.K.(1987).Thepolticizationoftheself-helpmovement.SocialPolicy,18(2),32-33.
Richard A. Couto is professor and the George M. and Virginia B. Modlin Chair in
Leadership Studies at the Jepson School of the University of Richmond. He is completing a
study of mediating structures and social capital, with support of the Aspen Institute Nonprofit
Sector Research Fund. His previous published work includes research on economic trends
and social issues in Appalachia and local civil rights efforts in the rural South.