Social Network Analysis: Results
As mentioned, of the 148 groups we identified, we received responses from 49. The 99 groups not included in the network were either not reached or did not give responses to our questions that enabled us to include them. In this category, of the groups we reached most simply did not want to name the organizations with which they shared information. Reasons given for their reluctance ranged from not wanting to exclude anyone in the responses to not wanting to give out any information of that sort. We were particularly surprised at our inability to contact The League to Save Lake Tahoe—one of the more prominent environmental organizations at the lake. However, our repeated calls failed to receive a response. Even still, we believe our work provides a relatively accurate snapshot of social ties among civic groups at the lake, and therefore some indication of how the community works.
Figure 1: Social Network of Lake Tahoe Civic Organizations.Our results are visualized in Figure 1. A few general observations are worthy of mention. The first is that all 49 groups are connected in some way. None is completely isolated. This means that there is at least some structure to the social network of civic organizations around the lake. Every organization is at most only two or three degrees separated from any other organization. Given the complexity of social life at Lake Tahoe, many people have wondered whether there is any community at all at the lake. They can stop worrying; there is at least some minimal civic network in existence around the Lake. However, a second observation is that there appear to be two main “islands” of networks within the overall structure. An island is a set of organizations more densely connected to one another than to the rest of the network. The two islands in our sample consist of one island primarily filled with business organizations and the other filled with environmental organizations.
The Sierra Business Council is the single organization that binds the two islands together. Self-described as an organization that works with businesses interested in using sustainable practices, it is perhaps natural that the Council would play this role. However, it is a bit surprising to learn that it is the only organization playing this role. As Burt (2001) argues, organizations that fill “structural holes” in networks are especially valuable. He argues that, as organizations that bind two or more distinct organizational groupings, these players “can determine who knows about opportunities, when they know, and who gets to participate in them.” Such players, he concludes, “are more likely to secure favorable terms in the opportunities they choose to pursue” (p. 30). Given the importance of this position, one might expect more organizations to occupy it. However, it appears that only one organization serves this role in Lake Tahoe. The Business Council is an umbrella organization overseeing the activities of approximately 90 other groups in the Sierra Nevada. Aside from its formal activities, it also keeps the environmental and business community connected to one another.
As far as the most connected organizations dealing with environmental issues at the lake, there were three: The Sierra Nevada Alliance (6 ties); The League to Save Lake Tahoe (4 ties); and, Sierra Watch (4 ties).1 No other environmental groups come close to the level of connectedness exhibited by these groups. All three are advocacy groups. That is, they define their role as advocating on behalf of specific environmental issues,. This is important, not the least because it means that the civic network at Lake Tahoe capable of speaking to and acting on environmental issues is strongly oriented toward interest-group behavior.
For example, the Sierra Nevada Alliance is the most connected environmental group at the lake. The Sierra Fund, Sierra Business Council, Sierra Watch, Tahoe Area Sierra Club, and The Tahoe-Baikal Institute all nominated it as an organization from which they routinely received information. In addition to these groups, a later interview revealed that the Truckee River Watershed Council also received information from the Alliance. What makes the Alliance so valuable? According to Jennifer Smith of the Tahoe-Baikal Institute, it is because this group helps a lot of smaller groups. “They are an umbrella organization that coordinates efforts for their member organizations,” says Smith. They also worked with other Tahoe organizations to develop a plan of action on issues such as the recent decision by the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency on the Heavenly Master Plan. Michael Donahoe of the Tahoe Area Sierra Club agreed. He said that the Alliance is important because it organizes other groups to take effective action when government agencies engage in behavior that, in the eyes of these groups, is detrimental to the environment at the lake.
The Sierra Nevada Alliance also helps other advocacy groups stay in business. Through grant writing, it procures and distributes federal grants to member groups. They do this because their member groups are not big enough to secure grants that are given by the federal government. According to Beth Christman of the Truckee River Watershed Council, the Sierra Nevada Alliance is able to get the grants and distribute them among the member groups. They can do this because they have a staff that is skilled in grant writing and managing the money when it comes in. Smith also says this ensures that the pool of money is not lost on the members of the Sierra Nevada Alliance members and, as a result, the Tahoe Area.
The Sierra Nevada Alliance also uses their grant writing skills to secure the help of people participating in the AmeriCorps Program. Sierra Nevada Alliance Executive Director Joan Clayburgh says that in 2007, the Sierra Nevada Alliance received the help of 19 AmeriCorps workers and distributed them to some of their member organizations around the Tahoe Area. No more than two AmeriCorps workers were given to any organization, so the distribution of the workforce was broad. Among the recipients of an AmeriCorps worker were the Tahoe-Baikal Institute and the Truckee River Watershed Council.
Finally, the Sierra Nevada Alliance holds an annual conference in a Sierra community (recently it has been held in Tahoe) to gather their member organizations for what they call “capacity building.” Clayburgh says that the purpose of the conference is to hold workshops on issues, fundraising, and networking in the area. The conference has become popular recently. “We really are seeing an expansion of organizations who have wanted to join the network in the past year,” says Clayburgh.
One might describe the Alliance’s work as an effort to increase the capacity of its member groups to advocate on behalf of the organization’s issues. For instance, though the Alliance doles ought significant resources, this money only goes to member groups. It has few, if any, relationships with organizations outside this context. Moreover, most of the work these groups do targets government agencies. They do very little to increase public involvement in environmental issues more broadly, or even to include the broader public in their own work. Clayburgh argues that the role of the Sierra Nevada Alliance is to help smaller organizations build capacity for doing community work. But this doesn’t really seem to be the case. Building the capacity of these groups to advocate on behalf of specific issues is not the same as building the capacity of a community to respond to its problems.
Something similar can be said of the League to Save Lake Tahoe’s involvement in the community. The League is easily the most visible environmental organization operating at Lake Tahoe. It is also one of the most connected. Four groups—Earth Share, Sierra Watch, the Tahoe Area Sierra Club, and the Tahoe-Baikal Institute—identified the League as an organization from which they received information. These relationships, however, underestimate the League’s importance in community decision-making about environmental issues at the Lake. In the past two three decades, the League has been involved in some of the most high profile court cases involving the TRPA. One of those cases—Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council, Inc. v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (2002) even went to the Supreme Court. Its capacity to litigate has made the League a major player in environmental decision-making.
To its credit, the League does some public outreach. For example, Jennifer Smith of Tahoe-Baikal says that the League holds informal public gatherings about once a month at a local pizza parlor. However, these forums seem to be intended less to involve than to educate local citizens. The League spends much of the time explaining its stances on specific environmental issues. In fact, one might say that the League specializes in public stances on environmental issues. It takes a position on just about every environmental and development issue at the Lake, and one of its staff attends every TRPA public meeting. Michael Donahoe of the Tahoe Area Sierra Club says that his organization works with the League frequently but the relationship is based on issues alone. As an example, Donahoe mentioned the recent controversy surrounding the Heavenly Valley Master Plan. As this issue heated up, the League held upwards of ten conference calls in a two-week period with other advocacy groups to discuss political strategy.
Thus, like the Sierra Nevada Alliance, the League to Save Lake Tahoe is best described as an advocacy group oriented toward the TRPA—not the broader Tahoe community.
Finally, Sierra Watch’s involvement in public life at Lake Tahoe is limited. The Sierra Fund, the Sierra Business Council, and the Truckee River Watershed Council named it as an important group in the region, but their involvement with one another has been based on one issue alone—the attempted development of the Martis Valley near Truckee. Sierra Watch led several conservation groups in trying to stop the development of the valley, an effort that eventually ended in a negotiated settlement. Betony Jones of the Sierra Business Council says that Sierra Watch’s ability to sue the developers played a big role in limiting the development that was negotiated in the Martis Valley.
Martis Valley aside, Sierra Watch is not very active in the Tahoe Area. According to Sierra Watch’s executive director, Tom Mooers, that’s exactly how Sierra Watch wants to operate. “The role that we play is as a very targeted organization that can apply specific and strategic resources to protect threatened landscapes in the Sierra,” says Mooers. In fact, they have purposefully stayed out of Tahoe itself because of the job done by the League to Save Lake Tahoe. Mooers says that there is no need to duplicate the great job being done by the League.
As one can see, the social network around environmental issues at the Lake is top heavy with advocacy groups. These groups are highly active: they stake out positions on the relevant issues; conduct educational campaigns in the public realm; share resources with other advocacy groups; attempt to hold TRPA accountable for its policies; and even threaten to sue if they do not get their way. What they don’t do is increase the capacity of the broader community to act. This only seems natural. They are staffed by professional advocates, not community organizers. As they see it, their role is to protect Tahoe’s environment as best they see fit, not to increase social trust in the broader community.
To us, the picture painted by this analysis of social networks at the lake explains a great deal about why many observers describe the Tahoe community as dysfunctional. None of the organizations named here are taking steps to make the public function as a complete community working toward making life better for everyone. Each group has specific interests; in pursuit of these interests they largely ignore the broader Tahoe community. A network dominated by interest groups is not one that is likely to build a broader civic capacity to act.
1 Only three other organizations in our sample had has many as 4 ties: The North Lake Tahoe Chamber of Commerce (4 ties); The Boys and Girls Club of North Lake Tahoe (4 ties); and, The North Lake Business Association (4 ties). Because my focus here is on environmental issues, I will not engage in a lengthy discussion of these organizations.