Resource Mobilization Theory: Homeless Social Movement Organizations

II. Problem
a. This paper researches validity of Resource Mobilization Theory as to how it applies to social movement organizations, in this case homeless social movement organizations. This paper seeks to answer what resources are used by SMOs, what resources are more useful to SMOs than others, what difference does externally derived versus internally derived resources play, and what level of influence does external support play. This research seeks to remedy the oversight that other papers have in: their ability to “empirically ground the resource concept”, the inability to create a relationship between resources and their ability to influence SMOs ability to act, and their inability to determine whether resources that are acquired are externally

The results show that 7 out of the 15 homeless SMOs showed viability with the resources they had. These seven homeless SMOs had a combination of nine resources. These include two moral resources, three out of six material resources, all three informational resources, and all human resources. Of these viable organizations, some had no additional resources beyond the nine necessary, some had 3 additional resources beyond the nine necessary ones, and some had all resources possible in this study. In addition to this, 75% of the resource types were derived from external organizations and all but one of the viable SMOs mobilized the majority of their resources through external sources, an average of 9.7 versus an average of 4.5). Moreover, 5 of the 7 viable SMOs were involved in a relationship with a facilitative organization that supplied 50% of their mobilized resources, while none of the nonviable SMOs had such a relationship. Finally, only 3 organizations that had a benefactor engaged in militant action out of a total of 8 SMOs that engaged in militant

To be a viable organization, the homeless SMO had to enact each moral resource of receiving statement of support from other organizations and they had to have active participation in their collective action. They had to mobilize the three material resources of having supplies, a meeting place, and office space. They needed the informational resources of strategic support, technical support, and referrals. Finally, all viable SMOs had strong leadership. In some cases, other resources were used but this didn’t change the fact of their viability. These other resources were, transportation, employment, money, a captive audience, and an activist cadre. In addition to this, it was seen that the majority of these viable organizations had external support and externally derived resources. Since this is true, it is seen as necessary that an SMO receive externally derived resources. Moreover, five of seven viable organizations had a facilitative relationship with a benefactor, it is seen as a positive to have a benefactor who “produces a stable resource flow that facilitate viability by allowing the SMO to devote more time to collective actions. Moreover, since this study concluded that there is generally “no significant relationship between the establishment of a benefactor and a propensity of SMOs to engage in militant action”, thus this relationship appears to enhance viability without moderating tactical