Belonging:Opportunities for social

inclusion in neighborhoods

Annica Brummel (PhD), Public Administration, Radboud University, Nijmegen

Social worker; community development

UN convention: full, effective participation on equal basis.

Social policies in Dutch context: ∗ Care-based support > community-based support∗ Care and support are organized on neighborhood level∗ High expectations of social networks and neighborhoods

(social) Policies

What are the opportunities for social inclusion on the neighborhood level?

Social inclusion from a capability perspective.

Comparative Case Study∗ 3 most different neighborhoods (5.000-7.000 residents each) in

Nijmegen∗ In-depth interviews: 34 citizens (IDD or MH)∗ Participatory observations of activities in neighborhood (14)∗ In-depth interviews: 27 volunteers, spread across 15 community-

based small groups (sports, cooking etc.)∗ 4 focus groups with 17 respondents (Q-sort and vignettes).

Methods

Social roles in the neighborhood

N1 N3

N2

Degree of social connectedness

DifferenceBetween

Neigh-borhoods

Community center

Community center

Capabilities approach

Capabilities =“freedoms or real opportunties to live the life one has reason to value”

Capability is an answer to the question:“What is a person able to do and be?”

~> Person-centered approach ~> Social justice, well-being (plural)~> Focusing on context and situation~> Human diversity

Capability Approach

Nussbaum’s list

1 Life

2 Bodily health

3 Bodily integrety

4 Senses, imagination, thought

5 Emotions

6 Practical reason

7 Affiliation*

8 Other species

9 Play

10 Control environment

* Being able to live with and towards others, being able to be treated as a dignified being, whose worth is equal to that of others.

Disadvantage is plural.

Focus on clustering and de-clustering of disadvantages.

Capability Affiliation:A. Being able to live with andtoward othersB. Being able to be treated as a diginfied being

Freedom of choice

Social inclusion

Corrosive disadvantages

Fertile functionings

Conceptual framework

∗ Woman, 43 years old, single, social worker∗ Paralyzed and housebound › 5 years∗ Mental health problems∗ Social isolation∗ First steps rebuilding social network∗ Volunteer in neighborhood∗ Second neighborhood (anonymous, few cb small

groups, far from city-center)

Rian; first contact

∗ Volunteer in community-based small groups: Daily routine, skills, social contacts, doing good to others.

∗ Professional support Self-esteem, forgiving, strength.

∗ Openness of cb small groups: No stigma, possibility for volunteer, reaching out to others.

Rian: process over time

Corrosive disadvantages:∗ Impairment∗ Neighborhood

Fertile functioning:∗ Scoot mobile∗ Volunteer

(de)clustering

New ambitions: political active Wish to move to another neighborhood Dependency of ‘fragile’ social network

∗ The list helpful in plurality and coherence of well-being.∗ Corrosive disadvantages and fertile functionings helpful in

patterns of human development.∗ Focus on real opportunities; beyond status quo.∗ Useful as instrument to analyze both individual and

contextual situation.

Conclusion

Practical implications:∗ More ‘Sense of place’ is needed in policies, social

work practices, concerning social inclusion.

Conceptual implications:∗ A conceptual framework based on capabilities

approach is promising for belonging. Cross-disciplinary approach, intersectionality.

Reflection