We have conducted random appraisals on certain aspects of social capital at two venues of our community development work: in the village of Szegvár in the Small Region of Szentes, and in the village of Királd in the Small Region of Ózd. We have included our inquiry in the framework of community appraisals, a method appearing to be suitable for the purpose. Our objective was to get concrete feedback on the strength, functioning and quality of civil society, and to place the acquired data in a framework of reference. To do this, a treatment of the English representative sample seemed most appropriate, but comparing data from Hungarian local communities also let us draw some important consequences. One of our further goals was to make the effects of community intervention measurable. The reason for this is that the picture taken at the “entrance” of community development professionals can be compared with a survey conducted later at their “exit”, thus making the measurement of the effects of the intervention possible. We are aware that our results can only be compared in a limited way, with certain reservations. The reasons for this are twofold: firstly, our researches are not representative, but are of a random type, while the British comparative data is the result of a 2001 representative survey. In this way, our results do not represent the attitude and activity of the local societies investigated, and the comparison is necessarily distorted (regardless whether we compare local communities to each other or to the British representative sample). As for Szegvár, it is risky to even draw consequences about the local community as a whole, since the proportion of those returning the questionnaire is not more than 17 per cent compared to the active local population. Furthermore, it is probable that those who have filled in the questionnaire are the most active members of their community, which means that the results from Szegvár are likely to give a more positive picture of the local community than a representative sample would. Secondly, in our case we primarily speak about community development appraisals, which means that the objective of registering data is not the measurement of social capital, but the mobilization of a wide range of local people. Besides the needs identified by local people and the assessment of local action capacities, the questions related to social capital formed only one part of the questionnaire. Hence, the exactness of registering data was subordinated to the cause of mobilizing the community, and the survey was therefore conducted through employing unskilled questioners. Instead, already mobilized and (from the community development aspect) trained local people visited their neighbours, and, having told them what they were expected to do, they left the questionnaires with them. In this way, people returning questionnaires had filled in those questionnaires on their own. Those who considered it unworthy answering questions relating to local problems (unfortunately, the majority) have not even arrived to the questions dealing with social capital. Nevertheless, the following considerations made us decide to undertake eventualities that could be attacked in a methodological sense with justice at several points. We consider the measurement of social capital a significant scope of reference from the aspect of the measurability of community development, and we regard this investigation as a pilot project of a longer process. At the same time, through publishing our results we would like to influence the process of measuring social capital by taking a national sample, as well as the process of elaborating social development programs born as a result. The questions we raised had been selected from the 2001 British Citizenship Survey (Home Office Research Study 270. 2001 Home Office Citizenship Survey: people, families and communities. Chris Attwood, Gurchand Singh, Duncan Prime, Rebecca Creasey and others, Home Office Research, Development and Statistics Directorate September 2003. p 140.). The Appraised Local Communities Szegvár is a village in the South of the Great Plain with a population of about 5100. The village has a strong agricultural and gardening tradition, and the quality of local land is excellent. Following the change of regime, privatization of land was started, and the once prosperous cooperative (the main employer of the local community) was divided into 6 limited companies of which only two function today. This change was a fundamental shock to the economic life of the village, and early retirement has become the major strategy of tackling unemployment (just as in Királd). As a result of the lack of jobs, an increasing number of young people move out of the area after finishing their studies. A community development process was started in 2003 under the leadership of Ilona Vercseg, which is still going on. The local people used the method of community appraisals to activate a high proportion of local community members. The collection of data lasted from October 2003 to December 2003. During this period community activists visited all local citizens over 14 with a questionnaire that had been put together by way of public discussions. A total of 666 questionnaires have been filled, 33 per cent of the total number of inquiries. The number of those answering particular questions often diverges from this, as not everyone has answered all the questions. Breakdown by sex: 376 women and 234 men (610 persons altogether) have provided data, while 56 persons have refused to fill the questionnaire. Activity of age groups (from most active to least active): 40-59 (214 persons), 25-29 (137 persons), 60-69 (102 persons), 70-79 (66 persons), 18-24 (63 persons), 14-17 (37 persons), and 80 or over (26 persons). 21 people have not answered this question. School attendance: secondary qualification (209), skilled worker (154), elementary school (147), college degree (59), university degree (21), less then 8 elementary classes (46). 30 people have not answered this question. Királd is a village in Northern-Hungary near Ózd, one of the former centres of Hungary’s heavy industry. Its current population is 996. The life of the 28 local communities surrounding Ózd has been shocked and rearranged by the collapse of steel industry and the closure of the local mines. Prior to this period, industrial and mining traditions appeared that have converted the former agricultural and winemaking traditions and have become the most determinative factors of local identity. The local society used to preserve these traditions, and this is the reason why the closure of the industries has shocked the small region to such an extent. People, who are left without jobs, have considered their situation as hopeless. 50 per cent of the active population have been pensioned off, and there are a lot of 42-year-old pensioners among them, as pensioning was one of the ways of avoiding unemployment (this is why the current unemployment rate is as low as 10 per cent). A community development process was started in Királd in September 2001 under the leadership of Ferenc Péterfi, which has been going on since. In Autum 2003 local community activists used the method of community appraisals to activize all local citizens over 14. They visited all adult residents with the activization questionnaire they had put together. 140 of those questionnaires have been field. The number of those answering particular questions often diverges from this, as not everyone has answered all the questions. Breakdown by sex: 78 women and 60 men (2 persons have not answered this question). Activity of age groups (from most active to least active): 40-59 (50 persons), 25-29 (32 persons), and 60-69 (20 persons). School attendance: skilled worker (49), elementary school (41), secondary qualification (35), college degree (9), university degree (2), less then 8 elementary classes (rest). It is important to note that in Királd only those questions were included in the questionnaire that local people considered important, which means that this sample is more partial than that of Szegvár. The results are illustrated by the percentage of answers given to particular questions (see Tables) The most important consequences that can be drawn from our results are as follows
TABLES WITH PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION