When Do "They" Become "Us?"

I am preparing to meet with a legislative delegation in Harrisburg to discuss an unfair, and harsh rate cut for in-home attendant care that has compromised the important services needed by people with disabilities, and elders served by our agency, CLASS in western PA. When I talked to a kindly legislative aid to get logistical details, I asked how this caucus usually unfolds, she told me and then said, "just tell them what "they" need. 

After hanging up the phone I thought about what she said - just tell them what they need; what "they" need. This got me thinking. It seems day in, and day out legislators, and public officials meet with constituents listening to what "they" need; how government can help "them." 

Think about this - it is as if the legislators, or public officials are outside the sphere of needs. More, when do "they" become we? And finally, when do "they" become us? 

This abstraction between those that govern us, and all the rest of us might just be at the core of our current public disconnection. I have been doing a lot of advocacy over my years in human services, and one thing I have learned is that when public officials personally experience a situation, they begin to think differently. In a way, they become us, and this humanizes life.

Maybe good public services really boil down to this basic humanization. If legislators would recognize that they ARE us, we would have better government and a more compassionate face to our society. 

The WD-40 for Growth

I was recently re-reading a book by Robert Putnam and Lewis Feldstein about social capital, and stumbled upon a very cool metaphor. Putnam and Feldstein have been pioneers in understanding the importance of social capital (relationships) in making a better community. 

In this book (Better Together, 2003) they discribe the difference between "bridging" and "bonding" forms of social capital.  They state that "bonding" social capital is found with people linked in similar and crucial respects and tend to be inward looking.  Think racial, or gender, or religious connections and convictions.  They see these bonded relationships using a type of "super glue" that helps create and keep the connection.  However, a community that is only bound by bonded issues can become narrow, and even hostile to outsiders.

This brings us to "bridging" connections, that are things we have in common that can get us closer to people who have other, and maybe more deeper, differences. This might be interest in sports, music, various hobbies that create a sort of bridge to others.  Putnam and Feldstein see these bridging relationships as a type of sociological WD-40.  I love this metaphor! 

We know that bonded relationships create a comfort, and security for us, being with "our own kind." Bridging social capital promotes a more pluralistic effect, and broadens our thinking. This is actually when we grow. 

So, get out of your comfort zone and look for people different from you who share a common interest. This will be your WD-40 to a broader perspective on people and life!

It's Not What You Say; It Is How You Say It

Back in 1980, I started to work on my Ph.D. At the University of Pittsburgh. I was very interested in learning more about ways to influence change. As a disability advocate, we were anxious to see attitudes and opportunities change in the community. This agenda culled my interest in communication. 

As I dove into this topic I found some research that was being done that fundamentally shifted my thinking. That is, communication theory boils down this process to 2 key aspects. One is "content," what you want to say; and "affect," how you say it. My thoughts then were that content is more important than affect. That if you are clear with content, you will be the most effective. 

Then I read this research conducted by John Ware, at the Univerity of Illinois. He published his work in an article titled, "The Dr. Fox Effect," and his findings were powerful. In essence, what he did was hire an actor he dubbed, Dr. Fox. Then he adjust content down by literally having circular information that sounded impressive, but was essentially illogical. But he enhanced affect, by having Dr. Fox deliver the content in a dramatic, and entertaining fashion. After focused rehearsals, he had Dr Fox do a lecture at the University of Illinois for human service professionals and student. He then evaluated how they felt about the material and what they planned to do with it.

As you might imagine, what he discovered is that most of the audience was dupped by Dr Fox. In essence they were much more influenced by the affect, than the content. And most of the audience was not only impressed, but felt they could use his material in their work. Ware called this "The Dr. Fox Effect."

For my dissertation I reprised the Ware study, but rather than use bogus content, I kept the content strong and viable, and manipulated affect. I had my actor (dubbed, Dr Crawford) deliver good content in 2 different ways; one style I called "direct" or businesslike. The other style I called, "expressive," where Crawford was more antimated and enthusiastic in delivery. My results mirrored what Ware found; that the expressive style caused people to learn more, and the students reported feeling good about what they had learned.  This research has essentially changed the way I communicate today.

So, when you are communicating, either formally, or informally with others, remember, it is not so much what you say, but how you say it!  

Who Was Your "Golden Gatekeeper"

One key concept we use to help people understand the process of building social capital is to recognize the critical role of the "gatekeeper." As we use the concept here, a gatekeeper is someone already accepted in the community who offer their support, endorsement or acceptance of a new-comer. This juxtaposition alone between someone already valued with someone hoping to be valued creates a lift to the new person. When people see (or hear) someone they like, trust, or respect endorse someone new, they are more prone to like that new person as well. Sociologists call this "social influence theory" and it is more powerful than we know. 

What is even more powerful is that the endorsement of a gatekeeper has both an internal and external impact. That is, when people around the gatkeeper see their actions toward the new-comer, they begin to warm up to them. This is the external effect of social influence theory, but more, there is a also an internal validation that the new person experiences that effects self-esteem, self-confidence, and feeling better about oneself. 

In trainings we do on this concept, we sometimes use an exercise that illustrates this internal impact. After discussing the concept of the gatkeeper, we ask people to take a minute and reflect on the gatekeepers in their life. We ask thm to write down their names and jot down the experience they had with this person. Then we find some volunteers to share their story.

Invariably respondents offer these powerful, warm memories of parents, grandparents, teachers, coaches, relatives, ministers and the like who were there of them, propped them up, saw something in them they couldn't see in themselves. Powerful, sometimes loving, tearful, but always incredibly validating. 

So stop now and think about the "golden gatekeepers" who have impacted your life. More, if you still have a relationship with this person stop now and reach out to them. Call, go visit, and tell them how much they influenced your life. 

As grief is measured in lost opportunities with people, don't miss this chance to tell your gatekeepers how much you love them! 

Wine and a Longer Life - What Causes This?

There has been a lot of talk in the news about the positive effects of wine. Studies have shown that wine, when consumed in moderation, has these amazing effects on health and longevity. People live longer, and have less heath struggles such as heat issues or diabetes. It is good news for wine drinkers.

These positive health effects have prompted researchers to dig deeper into exactly what it might be in the wine that is so good for us.  In this pursuit, they have looked at the types of grapes, or the soil it is grown in. They have examined the altitude the grapes are kept at.  They have considered the skin of the grape, or even the seeds.  There has to be a reason behind the medicinal, fountain of youth qualities.

Yet, most of these studies have come up inconclusive. We can't find a specific reason for the positive effects.

Until researchers started to look the social context.  What is now becoming more clear is that the benefits are not so much related to ingredients in the wine, as they are to the social intersection of whom you are drinking the wine with.  That is, when you take time out with friends, relax, and have a glass of wine, it is really not the wine, but the relationships that matter.  In the end, it is our social capital that makes the real difference.

So the moral to this story is continue to drink wine, but make sure you are engaging with people you care about in the process, and you will live a longer life!

Stigma - What You Can Do to Lessen its Effects

This past weekend I attended the annual NAMI (National Association on Mental Illness) in an effort to learn more about mental illness and find ways people who experience these conditions can be more included and involved in the community. While there I heard an interesting talk by Dr. Otto Wahl, from the University of Hartford, on stigma and was very impressed by his talk. 

Now I thought I knew a fair amount about stigma in the work I have done in the disability community, but had never really looked deeply at this concept. I remember reading "Stigma," by Erving Goffman, the eminent sociologist who really articulated the elements of stigma in the 1960's when I was in graduate school, and have certainly seen its (stigma) devaluing energy in my practice, but hadn't examined it in any intellectual way in recent years. 

Dr. Wahl gave some powerful statistics as to the continued struggle that stigma causes from limited employment, travel, involvement, all that lead to social isolation and limited social capital. He said there are 4 strategies to combat stigma. These are: 1) Education and Public awareness in a general sense. 2) Protest and Praise, directed at the press or the source of the stigma. 3) Contact, including people who might be living with stigma. 4) Empowerment, that people are given opportunity to speak out and have a voice in the community. 

My colleague, Paul Freund, who has been an advocate and therapist in the mental health field for the past 35 years told me that people with mental illness report that stigma is more painful and problematic to them than the actual mental illness symptoms they experience. 

So what can we do with this? Dr. Wahl suggested that we can all be positive role models, support organizations that deal with stigma, and speak out when we see/hear things that are unjust, and stereotypic. To Wahl's perspective I might add, look to build relationships with folks that might be experiencing a mental illness. We know that relationships build tolerance, and acceptance, and in the process we will grow as well. 

Employment First - Let's Help People with Disabilities Get Jobs!

Just got back from Bend, Oregon, where I met with advocates fro Oregon's Employment First initiative. This effort, launched 4 years ago, has been focused on the critical nature of work in our lives, and how advocate can work together to help the folks they serve obtain gainful work in their communities. My role at this gathering was to frame and expand how the concept of social capital can be used to assist the Employment First advocates in their work. 

Now, it is well documented that social capital is at the core of vocational success, both in obtaining, as well as keeping jobs. Studies are clear that the more people in your network, the more possibilities you may have of learning about job openings. Further, the more social and emotional experiences you have in relationships, the greater the likelihood that you will do well in your job once it is obtained. The majority of people get, and keep jobs based on their social capital skills. 

My key points at this gathering were that social capital should be considered from 2 major paths. One is to capitalize on the social capital available to the client you are working with, their family, your own connections, and the social capital enjoyed by people at your agency, both co- workers, and board members. All of these people know people who might open doors. 

The other path is to consider how you can help people you support build more of their own social capital. In this path you want to consider the 4 key steps outlined in our book, "Social Capital: The Key to Macro Change" (2014, www.lapublishing.com). 

if you are in the job placement field, consider how social capital principles can help you in your work. If you are not in the field, encourage employers you know to consider hiring folks with disabilities in their company. They will not go wrong! 

4 Intelligences - How You Can Make Better Decisions.

As many of you know, I have been teaching at the University of Pittsburgh for the past 25 years or so, and I have been preparing for a summer class I teach on "Human Relations." Technically the class was designed to prepare our students for the important role that human relations play in the workplace, but I have broadened the concept to look at human relations in all aspects of our lives. 

The book I use for this class is "The 8th Habit," by Steven Covey, the celebrated author of the mega-book, "7 Habits of Highly Effective People."  In the "8th Habit," Dr. Covey looks closely at empowerment and the concept of "voice," along with the other 7 habits. All good things related to human relations. 

In looking over this book, and reviewing key concepts presented by Covey, I was rminded of his perspective on intelligence.  He postulates that we do not have one intelligence, but rather we have 4 major intelligences, and they are all critical to life success.  Now this makes sense when you see the 4 elements, but is often difficult to digest, given our love affair with academic intelligence.

He suggests that the 4 intelligences develop chronically and they are: 

IQ - which is academic intelligence and is framed by the ability to understand and use data. 

PQ - which is "physical intelligence" and is informed by things external to us. Think, hot stove. 

EQ - which is "emotional intelligence" and is informed by feelings, either yours or those around you. 

SQ - which is "spiritual intelligence" and is framed by how you will be remembered, or your legacy. 

Now each of these 4 domains are important, but most psychologists suggest that it is emotional intelligence, EQ, that matters most in life, and human relations success. This is not strange when you think of some of the people you know who might be academically smart, but can't establish meaningful or long term relationships. 

The key in all of this, like most of life, is to blend the 4 intelligences when you need to make a decision in life, be it big, or small.  That is, state the challenge before you, and then run it though the 4 intelligences.  What is the smartest thing to do; what is the physically best thing for you; how will you and others feel about your choice; then last, how do you want to be remembered. 

If you frame your decisions around these options, you will make the best choices in your life! 

Are You Right Brained?

When I do trainings on social capital, we often explore 4 basic steps that can be followed in helping someone get more connected. These steps are simple, but do offer a guide for community building. 

The first step is to explore the person's interests in finding the "bridge" to other people. This could be a hobby, interest, or advocation a person has. The second step is to find a community on the other side of this bridge that celebrates the similar interest. The 3rd step looks to find the expected behaviors of that community and coach the person you are supporting to behave similarly. Then fourth, to find a "gatekeeper" who might help guide the new person into the this community

Although each step is important, the gatekeeper is often critical as they (the gatekeeper) provide a sanctioned endorsement of the newcomer. The sociological concept driving this is called "value-image juxtaposition." This is when the value of the gatekeeper gets transitioned to the newcomer. Advertisers understand this as any new product in marketing is often pitched by someone they think holds value in the greater community. That is why we see celebrities, or athletes pitching products. The advertisers are betting on value-image juxtaposition. 

In this regard finding a gatekeeper becomes a community building strategy. So, how will we know who might be a good gatekeer. Again, social science and psychology might help. In our work, we know that people more willing to connect with folks who might be different tend to be social risk-takers, who have a greater sense of emotional intelligence. These types of people are usually "right brained," in that they reach out more and seem to be more people oriented. 

Now neuroscience teaches us that our brains are bifurcated with the left side controlling precision, logic, and caution; and the right side being more macroscopic, imaginative, and emotional. So if we are not sure about whether someone would be a positive gatekeeper we can observe how they behave and get some clues. 

Another little exercise you can do right now, to see what side of the brain influences you, is to take your hands, and bring them together quickly, interlocking your fingers as you do this, repeating quickly 3 or 4 times. On the 4 sequence stop with your fingers interlocked, and observe which thumb is on top. If it is your left thumb, then you are likely more "right brained" and are probably a good candidate to be a gatekeeper. 

To look more at gatekeepers, check out my website, or go to www.buildingsocialcapital.org.  

Community - What Does it Mean to You?

The concept of "community" is a really powerful element in our lives. Quite literally it means "with togetherness" and it does more for us than we tend to give credit. Some anthropologists suggest that community is the primary reason why human beings have not only survived, but thrived as a species. Certainly as an animal, humans lack many of the acute skills and abilities of physicality to succeed on our own, so by sharpening our skills of sharing, collaboration, and cooperation, everyone does better. It is the history of human success! 

In spite of our individual skills or abilities, anyone of us who have experienced success have not realized this on our own. Our success is a compilation of people and experiences with other people that have informed, inspired, challenged, or cajoled us into performance or activity that lead to the success we have enjoyed. From our parents, to teachers, to coaches, to friends and allies, life is riddled with relationships that have made us better people.

It is this reality that has driven social scientists to come to the conclusion that life success is promoted, not just by our individual skills, but more by the social capital we have developed around us. Today researchers are convinced that all good things of life; health, happiness, advancement, acheivement, and even life expectancy are directly tied to social capital. Indeed, even the term, "social capital" is a deliberate effort to remind us that relationships are tangibly valuable to us. 

So, rever in your individual skills, but remember, if it wasn't for people around you, life would be not only a struggle, but for most, unbearable.  Think about it!

RACETOGETHER is all about Social Capital

This past week, Howard Schultz, the CEO of Starbucks announced their new race relations initiative, #racetogether. It got quite the media buzz. Then on Friday, March 20, USA Today CEO, Larry Kramer joined in with Schultz and put an interesting supplement in his paper that overviews the initiative; racetogether.usatoday.com.  

I read this supplement while returning to Pittsburgh from a #socialcapital training effort I did in Spokane WA. The piece was fascinating and they displayed comparison maps that showed the racial changes in the USA from 1960 to the projections for 2060.  It also looked at attitudinal aspects and offered some surprising T/F questions about race. I would strongly encourage you to find this supplement (on line, or in the weekend (March 20) edition of the USA Today.

Given the training on #socialcapital that I had just done related to relationships and engagement opportunities for people with disabilities, I was very taken with the supplement, and especially the questions posed on the last page. It was a quiz for the reader to do a reality check on their own race relations. The questions posed mirrored the very issues I had just done in my training related to disability inclusion and engagement. Now often in my thesis of changing the disability paradigm from micro (person with disability is problem) to macro (the community is the problem), I use social justice examples of race or gender equality as ways to better understand the challenge. The key to change rests with social capital. 

It seems that Schultz and Kramer are on that same path with #racetogether campaign. It is all about #socialcapital! So pause now, while you are reading this blog, and go the website, racetogether.usatoday.com and read the supplement carefully.  With a little imagination you can easily substitute the word "race" with the word "disability." We can create a better world for everyone if we just begin to build relationships! 

Instead of IPP's, why not CCP's

I was recently in upstate NY meeting with 3 excellent groups; Mountain Lakes Services in Port Henry, the Autism Alliance of NENYS in Plattsburgh, and the NY Partners in Policymaking meeting in Albany, but coordinated by the Advocacy Center of Rochester.  In each of these meeting we were talking about a shift in thinking from "micro" (the person with a disability has a problem to be addressed) to "macro" (the community needs to be more inclusive and flexible). 

In exploring this shift we used a lot of examples to articulate this change and examined other social movements that used a deliberate set of strategies to change society attitudes and perceptions. Sometimes these strategies were formal in looking to pass a law, or change a regulation that would afford people their rights; and other times the efforts were more informal, and used relationships and social influence theory to promote macro change. 

But even with some of these examples some folks struggled to understand the macro agenda until I used an example any family or person with disabilities has experienced, and that is the IPP. This acronym means Individual Program Plan, which virtually every "client" of disability services has  been given. The IPP suggests that the client has to work on some goal that requires them to change - micro change!  

The ah-ha moment for some people occurred when I said let's abandon IPP's, and instead, develop CCP's (Comprehensive Community Plans). With a CCP, the agency begins to turn attention to creating a more inclusive community - one that accepts people for who they are, not what people think they should be. 

So advocates, let's wake up and shift our gears from IPP's to CCP's.  This is the energy that will begin to #changetheworld! 

Similarity and Regularity: The Secret to Social Capital

We know clearly today, after 50 years of sociological research, that "social capital" or relationships in our life, has been linked to positive variables such as health, happiness, advancement, acheivement, test scores, positive self image, pro-social behaviors, and even longevity.   Any way you cut it, the quantity and quality of your relationships bring deep value to your life.

Further, in the work we are doing at CLASS, www.classcommunity.org, and through the Interdependence Network, www.buildingsocialcapital.org, we know that people (families) who experience disabilities, either congenitally, or acquired through accident, illness, or war, are at greater risk of losing social capital.

As we have studied, thought and written about this concept (see Social Capital: The Key to Macro Change, 2014, www.lapublishing.com) , we have come to a simple conclusion in how to build more social capital. Know that this simple conclusion is not without its inherent complexity, but simple none the less.

The 2 variables most associated with social capital are, 1. Similarity; the things we have in common with others; and 2. Regularity; how often we find ourselves with others.  Both of these ingredients combine to create the magic that is social capital. 

Of course there is more, but if you just find your (or others) similarity to people, and then find a community that is regular in its exchange related to this similarity, you have the start point for building more social capital. 

How Long Does it Take to Adopt a New Idea - Translational Theory

A number of years ago, at the invitation of my dean at the University of Pittsburgh, I was invited to a lecture on "translational theory." Now I didn't know exactly what "translational theory" was, but it sounded interesting, so I attended.

Although there is not definitive agreement on the exact dimensions of translational theory, this lecture interpreted the construct as the process and time that unfolds between the initiation of an idea, to its assimilation into the general public. That is, the effort of translating an idea to reality.

This really interested me in the work I do at CLASS (www.classcommunity.org) as we are trying to move our work from the historic "micro" perspective (people with disabilities have a problem) to a "macro" sense (the community has a problem accepting and including people with disabilities). It has been a track I have been on since the mid 80's, and that I began to write about this shift starting with my first book, "Interdependence: The Route to Community" in 1990.

At this lecture, the speaker (who was from the CDC) described how the average amount of time it takes to translate a new medicine being developed at the university to its application in aiding public health. He told us the average time it takes from the hatching of something innovative to its application averages about 25 years!!!  25 years!!!  And some good ideas never really see the light of day, even though they are excellent possibilities, predicated on emerging science.

This stunned me, but then got me thinking. My book, "Interdependence" laid a blueprint for moving the rehabilitation paradigm from micro to macro. That was 25 years ago! So this should be the year!
 

Are you an "Intellectual."

I just got back home from Sault St Marie, Ontario, where I was meeting with the good folks from Community Living Algoma. They invited me to share ideas on community engagement, social capital, and ways that they can help the folks they serve become more involved in their communities. It is a topic I have been focused on for a number of years and a goal that my own organization, CLASS, is working on as we try to bring action to our mission, "working towards a community where each belongs."  

In this process, I have been thinking about, and studying this topic of social capital, community engagement, and how cultures can change and adapt to include more people. We talk about it often at CLASS (www.classcommunity.org), and through the Interdependence Network (www.buildingsocialcapital.org) , an international coalition, we have done some research on the topic by surveying folks with disabilities to see how engaged they are as compared to people without disabilities.

While I was in Sault St Marie, during a break in one of our sessions, an attendee I was chatting with, commented on how deep and complex the topic of "social capital" was and suggested that it was an "intellectual" exploration. She called me an "intellectual;" and, although I think she was offering a compliment, this got me thinking. Is just reflecting on a topic a bit more, and looking at it from a number of angles, an intellectual process? Am I really an "intellectual," a term I would never use to describe myself. In fact, what does being intellectual actually mean?

When I hear the word "intellectual" or think about the intellectual process, I am drawn to reflect on school, or the university, or the laboratory. These settings, to me, are the places where intellectual thinking occurs, and deeper exploration unfolds. Professors, and researchers, and academics, these are the "intellectuals." 

Most of us would not describe ourselves as "intellectuals." I am a practitioner who works daily in the field. Yet, when you begin to think more deeply about a topic, this is an intellectual effort. And the more you think, and explore that topic, the more you find ways and means to not only understand, but to get better at applying things that can assist in mastering a topic. So, in a way, being intellectual about a topic is not only a good thing, but an essential one for any of us that are practitioners.

The other reflections from this persons comments revolved around the topic at hand. Most of us would agree that the notion of friendship and relationships are simple; and these simple things may require less intellect. Why spend time thinking deeply about simple things? Yet the notion of friendships, or social capital, simple as they may seem, are complex in their application. Just to understand this perspective, requires us to think more deeply.

So, in fact, being an "intellectual" is a good thing that we all should do more to embrace. Learning more about a topic, going deeper, is not just reserved for the university types, or academics; it is a process for us all, and especially for we practitioners.

Are Your Engagement Patterns Changing?

I continue to wonder about the changing face of community, and if this is effecting engagement patterns. This jumped at me just today while I was meeting with colleagues from Chatham University, Mamre Association in Brisbane (via Skype) and fellow members of our CLASS community. 

We have been working on an "engagement project" looking to survey families who have children with disabilities, and comparing them to families who have similar aged children without disabilities. This project emanated from discussions with families who are weary from the challenges that disability brings to their effort. Not the physical issues they have to deal with, but more the staring, eye rolls, and actual unwelcoming feedback they get from others when their child has a melt down, or shows other behaviors that people see as different. 

Many of these families have reported that it is sometimes just easier for them to stay at home, and not engage in typical community activities. This spurred us into wanting to investigate this issue a bit further. So we took the Social Capital Benchmarking Survey developed at Harvard and began to adapt it for this purpose. We will start our interviews in March. 

Today, in discussing this effort, we wondered if community engagement is changing, in a way, for all of us. That is, given the economic issues, the work demands faced by most parents, and the advent of social media outlets like Facebook, Twitter, and others, perhaps most of us are engaging less in person. Could it be that Facebook interactions, as anticeptic as they might be, are taking the place of the corner tavern, or cafe. 

I know that often when I enter a cafe, there might be a lot of people, but mostly staring at a computer screen, with ear buds wiring them to their devices. Where is the "engagement" in this scene? Certainly people are engaged, but more in a virtual world, than a face-to-face world. 

So, is this good or bad? Have you thought about your community engagement patterns? When you are actually with people, do you find yourself sneaking peaks at you smart phone? And if so, why is that; is a message more important than the person you are with? 

Just thinking about this today. 

Do You Know Your Neighbors - What this tells us about Social Capital

Back in 2010, a number of colleagues I had come to know from around the US and Canada got together to explore community engagement patterns of people with disabilities in North America. Up to that point, no formal study had been done in this area. Most of us knew, from our agency experiences, that folks with disabilities we served seemed to be more isolated, and less connected, but it had never been measured.   And understandably so; as exploration of connections, social capital, and engagement are hard to formally study.

Still, some generic measures existed, most notably work done at Harvard University by Dr. Robert Putnam and his associates. They created a "Social Capital Benchmarking Survey" (SCBS) in 2000, and began to look at typical engagement patterns around the US. Their survey looked at 7 benchmarking areas and yielded a "moment in time" portrait of community and community engagement patterns.

Making some minor adjustments to the SCBS my colleagues and I from the "Interdependence Network" (www.buildingsocialcapital.org) talked to 250 folks with all types of disabilities around US and Canada, and then more recently in Australia to get a more measured sense of community engagement patterns for people with disabilities being served to compare them to what Putnam had found. The process and findings were revealing.

Since then, we have been using this modified version of the SCBS in other areas and I am currently looking at the findings from Ohio, and Sault St. Marie, Ontario for some groups there, but to control and compare (and to help staff in these settings understand the survey) we asked the staff to do the survey on themselves. Before they conducted it on a person their agency serves.

Now on this survey there is one section on neighbors with 3 interesting questions that ask, "how many neighbors (people who live in close approximation to you) names do you know; how many neighbors have you spoken to in the past month; and how many neighbors homes have you been in over the past month? These are interesting, and revealing questions on connecting patterns closest to whee you are most regular- the place you live.

Certainly for me, growing up, and still living on "Condeluci Hill" my answer to these questions are fluid and impactful - I know, speak to, and have been in everyone's home in my neighborhood often. Yet, as we have probed on this question for our recent survey, I expected a disparity between folks with disabilities and the staff who answered the survey. What we are finding, however, is that these answers are closer between the 2 groups (staff, and folks served) than you would think. Staff who filled out the survey are not all that connected with neighbors. 

Now these are early returns, but I am wondering about neighborliness this morning. SocialCapital theory tells us that knowing, speaking, and connecting with neighbors is a core benchmark in engagement. So I am asking you - how neighborly are you?  How would you answer these 3 questions about neighbors?

Australia - Differences and Similarities

Last year at this time I was in Australia. I was invited by the good folks at Mamre, www.mamre.org.au, to share some ideas on community, social capital, and ways to assist folks with disabilities build more inclusive lives in community. Rachel Drew, Mamre director and I had met in New York City at a conference and were immediate kindred spirits.  She invited me to visit them in Australia.

I had never been to Australia and after receiving Rachel's invitation, I wanted my wife, Liz, and children to join me, but given the busy schedules of life, only Liz and Santino were able to make the trek. After the long (20 hours from Pittsburgh) flight, we arrived in Sydney. We built in some additional time to see this wonderful country, touring Sydney, it's countryside, Uluru (Ayers Rock), Cairns and the Great Barrier Reef and finally ended up in Brisbane, Queensland, where Mamre is located.

Rachel, and her colleagues, David Isitt, Ian Hulce, and all the other fine professionals at Mamre were fantastic hosts. We had a chance to see Brisbane, and it's countryside and were so taken by the hospitality and graciousness of everyone we met. Along with the regular tourist items, Koala's, crocs, bridge tours, and the beach, we also were invited to authentic Aussie barbies! 

After Liz and Santino headed back, I stayed on to share ideas and concepts with Mamre staff and many of the other disability advocacy community in and around Brisbane. I was inspired and impressed by the good work of Mamre in supporting families and individuals, and the passion of their staff. These folks understood that people (and especially people with disabilities) can be in the community, and still isolated and lonely - and that the antidote to loneliness are viable relationships - social capital. 

Part of our work in Australia, was to examine community engagement patterns and so we surveyed folks with and without disabilities to get a snapshot of reality, using the Social Capital Benchmark Survey developed at Harvard. The results of this survey, and our summary paper is found at the Interdependence Network website, www.buildingsocialcapital.org.  The findings, however, were the same as discovered in the US, Canada, and other parts of the world - people with disabilities are isolated and disconnected from community; Inspite of all the fine programs offered to them.

The net result of this trip to Australia, was to understand that Inspite of the distance, and differences of the culture and climate, many things are exactly the same. In the challenge of building a community where everyone participates, we all, the US, Canada, UK, Europe, Asia, and Australia, have much to do. 

So, what are you doing! 

Elderly and Disability Supports: The Crisis Looms

Another hat I wear in our community is as president of the board of the Southwestern PA Partnership on Aging (SWPPA). This nonprofit group is the foremost advocate in our region for aging and disability issues, and the SWPPA board is made up of some of the most astute advocates I have come to know. 

My involvement with SWPPA was initiated by some of the similarity of issues experienced by people who are aging, as well as with folks who live with disabilities. Both groups (elders, and people with disabilities) experience powerful attitudinal, and architectural barriers. Along with devaluing stereotypes, both groups are economically disadvantaged, and struggle for basic services that most of us take for granted.

So to stay focused in both areas, I keep my eyes pealed on new advances, and best practice alternatives that we can advocate for all people. To this end, this weekend, I found an article tweeted by Bill Moyers on the "Elder Boom" and although I was aware of these issues, reading this article put it into better perspective. For me.

Moyer summarized a new book by Al-Jen Poo, "The Age of Dignity," and here are some of the things she reported: 

* Every 8 seconds an American turns 65, some 10,000 per day. 

* Today, 13% of the US population is over 65; by 2020 it will be 20% 

* Today, 5 million Americans are over 85

* 70% of people over 65 need some sort of in-home support

* We will need at least 1.8 million additional home care workers to support the "boom" 

This challenge is real now, as my organization, CLASS employs some 200 personal care attendants (in-home care) to support the folks we serve in their homes and we are always struggling to find staff to do this work. Even more challenging are the economics that we face. Today, the average national hourly salary for a PCA is between $20 to $21 dollars (although in PA it is $17 to $18/hr), and the average national monthly cost for a 4 person room in a long term care facility is $3,300. If you want a double room, the cost jumps to an average $6,200/month. Where do we find the people, and funds, to support the projected increases, especially as conservative government practices look to cut budgets.

All of this reinforces the need for more PCA's and Direct Support Professionals (DSP) and speaks to a serious economic crisis that may loom ahead.  Aging should be a time of grace and dignity, but the numbers suggest that for many, it will be tragedy. 

Humans: What Lies Behind our Behavior

My organization, CLASS (Community Living and Support Services) recently moved our offices and programs to our newly renovated building in Swissvale (Pittsburgh). This new setting has ushered in a new era for us as we begin our 64th year of service to folks with disabilities in our community; especially now that we are fully independent from UCP. 

As we continue to settle into this great building, we have finally begun to unpack our library books, and one of the fist books I found in the box was, "The Social Animal," by the NY Times columnist, David Brooks (Random House, NY, 2011).  As I am always distracted by books (my poor wife has to re-direct me when near book stores at the mall), I stopped my unpacking and started to finger through this work which was published in 2011. 

Now I am not a big David Brooks fan as his political perspectives are much more conservative than mine, but he is an excellent researcher, writer, and commentator, and this book is a fun, sociological perspective of people and culture. Given my interest in social capital, relationships, and culture change, I began to re-read this book, and especially the sections I underlined 4 years ago. 

The book takes 2 fictitious characters, Rob and Julia, their meeting, falling in love, and marrying; and at most junctures Brooks overviews what is happening with sociological, or anthropological evidence and theory. It is a very creative process. 

What was interesting to me then (and still today) were musings Brooks makes such as: "In all societies men engage in more group violence and travel farther from home than women...... Plays written and produced in Germany are 3 times as likely to have tragic or unhappy endings than plays written and produces in the US....Nearly a quarter of Americans say they are often afraid of saying the wrong thing in social situations, whereas 65 percent of all Japanese say they are often afraid.....Cities in the southern part of US are twice as likely to have words like "gun" in their names, whereas cities in the north are more likely to have words like "joy" in their names. "

If you are like me, and are interested in what is behind what we do, and especially how it relates to our social capital, books like "The Social Animal" offer us another lens. In learning.

I can't wait to see what books are still in this box!