lIIIIII3IIIIII2IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII

301581 5727

LIBRARY

Mlchlgan State
University

 

 

 

 

This is to certify that the
dissertation entitled

UNDERSTANDING THE SOCIAL FABRIC OF URBAN COMMUNITIES
AND ITS RELATIONSHIP TO PROSOCIAL‘ BEHAVIOR

presented by

Juliette Robyn Mackin

has been accepted towards fulﬁllment
of the requirements for

Ph.D. degree in Esychalogy;

Urban Studies

 

ﬂﬁJ/W

Hyatt: pzfessor F
Date 3/zY/f 7 M‘

MS U is an Afﬁrmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 0-12771

 

PLACE ll RETURN BOX to remove thie checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or More dete due.

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

+ L__I:j
I I I I

MSU ie An Affirmetive Action/Equel Opportunity inetituion

UNDERSTANDING THE SOCIAL FABRIC OF URBAN COMMUNITIES
AND ITS RELATIONSHIP TO PROSOCIAL BEHAVIOR

By

Juliette Robyn Mackin

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulﬁllment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Psychology and Urban Aﬂ‘airs Programs

1997

ABSTRACT

UNDERSTANDING THE SOCIAL FABRIC OF URBAN COMMUNITIES
AND ITS RELATIONSHIP TO PROSOCIAL BEHAVIOR

By

Juliette Robyn Mackin

Social fabric is an important construct for developing an understanding of the
social characteristics and social health of residential communities in urban areas. This
study (3) reviews and consolidates the broad literature on the social components of
communities, (b) creates and tests a measure of social fabric using interview data, (c)
explores the relationship between social fabric and prosocial behavior, and (d) investigates
qualities of communities that help form social fabric. ln-person structured interviews of
445 residents (households) of 37 residential blocks in Lansing, Michigan, were conducted,
and data were analyzed at both the individual and block levels of analysis. Block level
data consisted of individual scores aggregated to the mean for each block. The
signiﬁcance level for all analyses is p < .05. Social fabric is found to consist of three
factors, social ties between residents (ST), the sense of security residents feel regarding
their communities (SEC), and the level of community action residents undertake (CA).
These factors were internally consistent (alphas = .92, .81, & .81, respectively, at the
individual level; alphas = .94, .86, & .88, respectively, at the block level). The three
factors signiﬁcantly correlated with one another (individual level: ST & SEC - r = .69, ST
& CA - r, = .63, SEC & CA - r = .53; block level: ST & SEC - r = .72, ST & CA - r = .66,

SEC & CA - z = .52). Analysis of variance tests showed that each factor differed

signiﬁcantly by block (ST: E(36, 408) = 2.91, eta squared = .21; SEC: (E(36, 408) = 3.54,
eta squared = .24; CA: (H36, 408) = 4.46, eta squared = .28). Blocks also diﬂ‘ered
signiﬁcantly in the variance of responses. Analysis of variance tests showed no signiﬁcant
block differences in prosocial behavior (helping others, interest in local participation).
Individual level multiple regression analyses indicated that perceptions of social fabric
predicted an individual’s prosocial behavior. Helping behavior was signiﬁcantly predicted
by security and community action (E(3, 315) = 4.49, 82 = .04). Interest in local
participation was signiﬁcantly predicted by social ties (E(3, 432) = 3.77, 32 = .03). All
ﬁve hypothesized variables (years on the block, respondents’ age, crime rating of the
block, income rating of the block, and presence of children) were signiﬁcantly different
between blocks. At the block level, none of the independent variables signiﬁcantly
predicted social ties when entered into the multiple regression analysis simultaneously.
Income rating and crime rating both signiﬁcantly predicted security (E(2, 34) = 20.69, 32

.55). Presence of children signiﬁcantly predicted community action (E(1, 35) = 6.67, 32

.16). i Many additional signiﬁcant correlations between these variables exist at both the

block and individual levels.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

There are many people whose assistance contributed to the completion of this
work. John Schweitzer enriched my Michigan State University experience. He was my
Urban Affairs advisor for my entire graduate career, Master’s committee member,
comprehensives committee member, supervisor of my work as a research and teaching
assistant, and co-chair of my doctoral committee. In addition, he has been a wonderful
mentor and friend, providing support, encouragement, and a steadfast positive attitude
that helped me over the many bumps in the road. Bob Caldwell also made this journey
possible. He was my supervisor and co-worker at the Children’s Trust Fund, chair of my
comprehensives committee, and chair of my doctoral committee. He was my consistent
advocate in Psychology. These two faculty members gave me the candles that lit my path,
and for their kindness I am truly grateful.

Thanks are also due to my other committee members, Rick DeShon and Tom
Reischl. Rick’s statistical guidance and assistance were extremely helpful, and facilitated
the timely completion of this project. Tom’s ﬂexibility and willingness to join the team of
a work in progress was commendable. I appreciated their suggestions and thought-
provoking discussion questions. This dissertation work was partially ﬁinded by the Urban

Affairs Alumni Association Robert L. Green Scholarship Award.

iv

I would also like to express my appreciation to my dissertation support group
members, Kim Eby, Linda Burke, Bonnie BootsMiller, Holly Angelique, and Manuela
Kress. Statistical help was generously donated by Deb Bybee, David Loveland, and David
Lounsbury. Thank you to the wonderful project staff with whom I worked in Urban
Affairs: Edwin Gomez, Annalie Campos, June Woo Kim, Yu Hsi Lin, Eric Pevzner, Torn
Crew, and Fran Fowler. I also want to note the excellent work done by our many
interviewers who collected the data for this project and the generosity of the residents of
the 37 blocks who gave us time and information, and who let us into their homes and
communities. Suzanne Wingate, my ballet and yoga instructor, deserves special
recognition for helping me keep balance in my life. My deepest appreciation also goes out
to my other ﬁiends, colleagues, and family members, who kept me going.

Finally, I want to thank Lance Anderson, my best friend, whose support made this

achievement possible. We did it together.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ................................................... ix
LIST OF FIGURES .................................................. xiii
INTRODUCTION .................................................... 1
Background ....................................................... 2
Social Fabric ...................................................... 6
The Metaphor .................................................. 8
Interwovenness .............................................. 8
Support and Comfort .......................................... 8
Weaving .............. . ...................................... 9
Design ..................................................... 9
Limitations of the Metaphor .................................... 10
The Importance of a Strong Social Fabric for a Healthy Community ......... 11
Research Questions ................................................ 14
CHAPTER 1
LITERATURE REVIEW .............................................. 16
The Dimensions of Social Fabric: A Multidisciplinary Investigation ........... .16
Belonging .................................................... 17
Connection ................................................... 17
Support ...................................................... 19
Participation ................................................... 19
Empowerment ................................................. 19
Safety ...................................................... 20
Finding These Themes in the Literature .............................. 20
Topics Related to Social Fabric ....................................... 21
Sense of Community ............................................ 21
Neighborhood Cohesion .......................................... 25
Neighboring ................................................... 28
Social Climate ................................................. 31
Community Solidarity ........................................... 33
Community Attachment .......................................... 34
Community Satisfaction .......................................... 35

Community Health .............................................. 37

Summary ..................................................... 40
Measuring Behaviors and Attitudes .................................... 42
Identifying a Meaningﬁil Community ................................... 45
Levels of Conceptualization and Measurement ............................ 46
Social Fabric’s Role in Improving Cities ................................. 49

Prosocial Behavior .............................................. 50

Volunteering to Help Someone .................................. 51
Donating Blood ............................................. 56

Working with Neighbors ......................................... 58

Leadership .................................................... 59
Predictors of Social Fabric ........................................... 60
Summary ........................................................ 61
Hypotheses ...................................................... 62

CHAPTER 2
METHOD .......................................................... 65
Setting .......................................................... 65

Selection Criteria ............................................... 66

Exclusions .................................................... 67
Research Participants ............................................... 67
Design .......................................................... 69
Procedure ....................................................... 70

Interviewer Training ............................................. 70

Interviews .................................................... 72

CHAPTER 3
RESULTS .......................................................... 74
Hypothesis 1 ..................................................... 74
Conﬁrmatory Factor Analysis ...................................... 74
Principal Components Analyses .................................... 75
Social Ties ................................................. 76
Security ................................................... 76
Community Action ........................................... 76

Analysis of Variance ............................................ 78

Correlations Between the Three Factors .............................. 78

Reliability and Validity ........................................... 79
Hypothesis 2 ..................................................... 80

Analysis of Variance ............................................ 81

Hierarchical Linear Models ....................................... 81

Social Fabric as a Predictor of Helping ............................ 81
Social Fabric as a Predictor of Interest in Local Participation ........... 82
Individual Level Correlations ...................................... 83

vii

Individual Level Multiple Regression Analyses ......................... 84

Hypothesis 3 ..................................................... 84
Predictors of Social Fabric ........................................ 84
Analysis of Variance ............................................ 86
Correlations ................................................... 86
Individual Level Multiple Regression Analyses ......................... 88
Block Level Multiple Regression Analyses ............................ 88

CHAPTER 4
DISCUSSION ....................................................... 91

Factor Structure of Social Fabric ...................................... 91
Social Ties .................................................... 91
Security ...................................................... 92
Community Action .............................................. 92
Behavioral and Affective Items ..................................... 93
Comparing Levels of Measurement ................................. 94

The Social Fabric Metaphor .......................................... 96

Social Fabric’s Inﬂuence on Helping Behavior and Interest in Local Participation . . 97
Differentiation of Helping and Social Fabric .......................... 101
Differentiation of Interest in Local Participation and Social Fabric ......... 102
Levels of Analysis ............................................. 103
Limitations of the Prosocial Variables .............................. 104

Demographic Predictors of Social Fabric ............................... 105
Social Ties ................................................... 106
Security ..................................................... 107
Community Action ............................................. 108
Relationships Between the Three Components ........................ 110
Summary .................................................... 110

APPENDIX A - Block Information ..................................... 112
APPENDIX B -- Interview Form ........................................ 115
APPENDIX C - Introduction .......................................... 122
APPENDIX D - Flyer . . . ............................................ 123
APPENDIX E - Data Tables .......................................... 124
LIST OF REFERENCES ............................................. 174

viii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 - Social Fabric Themes Found in Literature on the Social Components of

Communities ............................................... 42
Table 2 - Lansing, Michigan - Demographic Information ...................... 65
Table 3 - Summary Information about the Residential Blocks in the Sample ......... 68
WWW Data .................................. 124
Table 5 - Community Action - Descriptive Data ............................ 125
Table 6 - Safety - Descriptive Data ...................................... 125
WWW ........................... 126
Table 8 - Social Ties - Descriptive Data .................................. 127
Table 9 - Security - Descriptive Data .................................... 128
Table 10 - Community Action -- Descriptive Data ........................... 129
Table 11 - Correlation Matrix of the Social Fabric Factors ...................... 78
Table 12 - Correlation Matrix of Social Fabric Factors and Other Survey Items ..... 130

Table 13 - Correlation Matrix of Social Fabric Factors and Prosocial Behavior
Variables ................................................. 131

Table 14 - Multiple Regression Analysis for Social Fabric Variables Predicting
Helping .................................................. 132

ix

Table 15 - Multiple Regression Analysis for Social Fabric Variables Predicting
Interest in Local Participation .................................. 133

Table 16 - Correlation Matrix of Social Fabric Factors and Demographic Predictors -
Individual Level ............................................ 134

1 Table 17 - Correlation Matrix of Social Fabric Factors and Demographic Predictors -
Block Level ............................................... 135

Table 18 - Multiple Regression Analysis for Demographic Variables Predicting Social
Ties (Individual Level) ....................................... 136

Table 19 - Multiple Regression Analysis for Income and Crime Predicting Social Ties
(Individual Level) ........................................... 137

Table 20 - Multiple Regression Analysis for Demographic Variables Predicting
Security (Individual Level) .................................... 138

Table 21 - Multiple Regression Analysis for Crime, Income, and Age Predicting
Security (Individual Level) .................................... 139

Table 22 - Multiple Regression Analysis for Demographic Variables Predicting
Community Action (Individual Level) ............................ 140

Table 23 - Multiple Regression Analysis for Income Predicting Community Action
(Individual Level) ........................................... 141

Table 24 - Multiple Regression Analysis for Security Predicting Social Ties (Individual
Level) ................................................... 142

Table 25 - Multiple Regression Analysis for Social Ties Predicting Community Action
(Individual Level) ........................................... 143

Table 26 - Multiple Regression Analysis for Demographic Variables Predicting Social
Ties (Block Level) .......................................... 144

Table 27 - Multiple Regression Analysis for Years Predicting Social Ties (Block
Level) ................................................... 145

Table 28 - Multiple Regression Analysis for Income Predicting Social Ties (Block
Level) ................................................... 146

Table 29 - Multiple Regression Analysis for Age Predicting Social Ties (Block
Level) ................................................... 147

Table 30 - Multiple Regression Analysis for Demographic Variables Predicting
Security (Block Level) ....................................... 148

Table 31 - Multiple Regression Analysis for Income and Crime Predicting
Security (Individual Level) .................................... 149

Table 32 - Multiple Regression Analysis for Years Predicting Security (Block Level) . 150
Table 33 - Multiple Regression Analysis for Age Predicting Security (Block Level) . . 151

Table 34 - Multiple Regression Analysis for Children Predicting Security (Block
Level) ................................................... 152

Table 35 - Multiple Regression Analysis for Demographic Variables Predicting
Community Action (Block Level) ............................... 153

Table 36 — Multiple Regression Analysis for Proportion of Households with Children
Predicting Community Action (Block Level) ...................... 154

Table 37 - Multiple Regression Analysis for Security Predicting Social Ties (Block

Level) ................................................... 155
Table 38 - Multiple Regression Analysis for Social Ties Predicting Community Action

(Block Level) .............................................. 156
WWW .............................. 157
Table 40 - Social Ties -- Descriptive Data ................................. 158
Table 41 - Community Action - Descriptive Data ........................... 160
Table 42 - Security - Descriptive Data ................................... 161

Table 43 - Correlation Matrix of Response and Reﬁrsal Rates with Prosocial Behavior
Variables (Block Level) ...................................... 162

Table 44 - Multiple Regression Analysis for Helping Predicting Social Ties (Individual
Level) ................................................... 163

Table 45 - Multiple Regression Analysis for Helping Predicting Security (Individual
Level) ................................................... 164

Table 46 - Multiple Regression Analysis for Helping Predicting Community Action
(Individual Level) ........................................... 165

Table 47 - Multiple Regression Analysis for Interest in Local Participation Predicting
Social Ties (Individual Level) .................................. 166

Table 48 - Multiple Regression Analysis for Interest in Local Participation Predicting
Security (Individual Level) .................................... 167

Table 49 - Multiple Regression Analysis for Interest in Local Participation Predicting
Community Action (Individual Level) ............................ 168

Table 50 - Multiple Regression Analysis for Interest in Working with Neighbors
Predicting Security (Individual Level) ............................ 169

Table 51 - Correlation Matrix of Helping, Helping Components, and Support Items . 170

Table 52 - Correlation Matrix of Interest in Local Participation and Local Involvement
Items .................................................... 171

Table 53 - Correlation Matrix of Social Fabric Factors and 1990 Census Data
Variables (Block Level) ...................................... 173

xii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1 - Social Fabric Components (Hypothesized) .......................... 18
Figure 2 - Outcomes of Social Fabric (Hypothesized) ......................... 64
Figure 3 - Predictors of Social Fabric (Hypothesized) ......................... 64
Figure 4 - Social Fabric Components (Results) .............................. 77
Figure 5 - Results of Individual Level Regressions ............................ 85
Figure 6 - Results of Block Level Regressions ............................... 9O

xiii

INTRODUCTION

Communities are groups of people who are connected and interdependent in some
way. Residential communities provide geographic communality, and have the potential to
supply residents with a sense of belonging and a sense of safety, a mechanism for
participation, and support from neighbors. Social fabric is what holds societies together,
maintains social order, and sustains institutional forms (Short, 1986). At the local level, a
strong social fabric means that people have a commitment to, and feel responsible for,
each other and the community. Social fabric is widely believed to be an important force in
preventing many social problems.

Social fabric is a group level construct because it involves relationships between
many people. It is a broad, overarching description of the quality of social networks in a
community and a group sentiment of shared responsibility and interdependence. It is the
primary social characteristic that makes a community “healthy.” Social fabric is believed
to be composed of several distinct components. An investigation of the underlying
structure of social fabric is one of the main purposes of the current study.

In the quest for healthy communities, it is important to identify the characteristics
that improve and sustain a satisfactory quality of life for individuals. When people help

each other and the larger community, it is known as prosocial behavior. Prosocial

2

behavior is an important indicator of a healthy community, because it demonstrates that
effective social networks are in place to maintain the community. A strong social fabric is
believed to be one of the factors that predicts prosocial behavior. It is important to
understand the composition and mechanisms of a community’s social fabric in order to
clarify its relationship to prosocial behavior. This study analyzes the structure of social
fabric in urban communities and uses the resultant measurement tool to identify signiﬁcant
prosocial outcomes.
Background

Decades of research on urban areas have focussed on the problems that cities face
(e.g., Darden, Hill, Thomas, & Thomas, 1987). Much of the work in cities has involved
looking at the physical and economic components of metropolitan areas, including
infrastructure development, business investment, housing quality, and transportation (e.g.,
Kaplan & James, 1990). While these issues continue to demand attention, focus is also
shifting to an emphasis on the social factors that impact cities. Social concerns, including
gangs, crime, substance abuse, illiteracy, unemployment, and isolation, have become key
issues in discussions of urban planning and development. Evidence of social problems in
urban areas is abundant, including urban crime and safety issues (Hartnagel, 1979; Perkins,
Florin, Rich, Wandersman, & Chavis, 1990), loss of a sense of community (Hunter, 1975;
Sarason, 1974), and decreases in civic engagement and social connectedness (Goss, 1994;
Putnam, 1993). These common concerns are creating many efforts aimed at restoring
community ties, working together toward common goals, and rebuilding a sense of

individual responsibility and a respect for the common good (Goss, 1994). The current

3

research focusses on the concept of a social fabric in order to improve the health of urban
communities.

Over the past several decades, researchers and theorists have become concerned
about the decreasing strength of social fabric in communities in the United States (e.g.,
Kasarda & Janowitz, 1974; Putnam, 1995; Sarason, 1974). A yearning for community has
been growing in this country (Newbrough & Chavis, 1986). In the 19705, Sarason
illuminated the concept of “community” and brought attention to the increased feelings of
loneliness and loss of sense of community being articulated by authors of popular books
(Cochrun, 1994). Several key factors have contributed to this decline, including
industrialization, urbanization, technology and knowledge, residential mobility, and
demographic and political changes (Cochrun, 1994; Dunharn, 1986; Gates, 1987; Kasarda
& Janowitz, 1974; Putnam, 1995).

In pre—industrial society, a sense of community was a natural part of life (Cochrun,
1994). Industrialization and urbanization have decreased the importance of the physical
place as part of the meaning of “community” (Dunham, 1986). Dramatic increases in the
speed of communications technology have also contributed to this decline. The physical
location of workers, for example, matters less than their access to information through
computers and facsimile machines. Technology has also altered the leisure patterns of
residents in the United States. Emphasis on television and video recorders has led people
to recreate at home rather than in the community (Putnam, 1995).

Residential mobility, in part a by-product of urbanization, separates families and

support networks and requires “rerooting” in new communities at every move (Putnam,

4

1995). Demographic changes, including increases in large scale, corporate businesses
over small, local businesses, increases in the numbers of women working outside of the
home, and increases in the number of single adult households, have also contributed to a
weakened social fabric (Putnam, 1995). Finally, political changes have altered the federal
government’s approach toward societal problem-solving. The 19803 witnessed a shift
from a policy of centralized decision-making to a focus on state and local decision-making
and problem-solving. The fabric of communities was tested, as members struggled to
identify their communities’ capacities and work together (Gates, 1987).

These societal level changes have dramatically aﬂ‘ected local communities. Putnam
(1995) describes the critical impact that these shifts have had on the types and frequency
of social interactions in the United States. Over the past generation, participation in a
variety of civic and social activities has declined. There have been lower rates of voting,
attending church, volunteering, membership in labor unions, participation in parent/teacher
organizations, and membership in civic and fratemal organizations. Putnam also notes
that neighborliness has decreased since the 19705. Instead, membership has increased in
groups that generally require low levels of interaction and participation, such as national
organizations and professional associations. Also, rates of membership in small, informal
support groups have increased, perhaps as a way for people to ﬁnd the social
connectedness they are lacking in other areas (Putnam, 1995).

Putnam’s (1993) studies of communities in other countries led him to conclude
that the combination of social and civic participation, which he calls civic engagement,

leads to trust, reciprocity, and effective local government. Networks and norms of civic

5

engagement comprise “social capital.” An erosion of social capital, such as that which is
seen in the United States, means that not only are people less engaged with one another,
but they are also less prepared to cooperate for shared goals. Where “trust and reciprocity
were woven into [their] social fabric” (p. 106), communities enjoy prosperity and efﬁcient
government. Where neighborhood solidarity has been created, the incidence of crime has
decreased. Putnam concludes that investment in social capital is needed at the local level.
Increased social connectedness and civic engagement will improve the functioning of our
governments and the strength of our communities.

Gates (1987) calls the societal and political fabric a community’s civic
inﬁ'astructure. Like the physical infrastucture of roads, bridges, and buildings, civic
infrastructure also requires periodic maintenance and renewal. Ten aspects of community
life are described which differentiate successful from unsuccessful communities. They
include citizen participation, community leadership, government performance,
volunteerism and philanthropy, intergroup relations, civic education, community .
information sharing, capacity for cooperation and consensus building, strategic/long range
planning, and inter-community cooperation. Gates also identiﬁes community spirit as an
important component of communities. These components are used by communities to
assess their ﬁrnctioning and to identify social factors that need improvement. Self-
assessments help communities select priorities for policy and community development in
order to improve the social health and strengthen the social fabric. The concept of social

fabric is explained in further detail below.

6

Social Fabric

People in many societal roles, including politicians, business leaders, law enforcers,
teachers, and parents, are concerned about the social health of our nation’s communities.
People and neighborhoods, particularly in urban areas, are in distress, as evidenced by high
rates of crime, violence, substance abuse, unemployment, illiteracy, and other social ills.
Urban areas, however, also have many strengths. One major challenge to community
development and revitalization efforts in cities is to identify and build upon the positive
characteristics that these areas have to offer. By expanding the skills of urban residents
and utilizing existing social networks, many exciting improvements can be made in
neighborhoods, thereby enhancing the quality of life of their residents.

Community psychologists, planners, sociologists, and other observers of urban life
have used many terms to describe the positive aspects of the urban social environment.
“Social fabric” is one commonly heard term that illustrates the networks and
interconnections between people. It has been deﬁned as the existence of, or nature of,
social order and social processes, and the context in which social life takes place (Short,
1986). Works that discuss social fabric often make reference to “community” and to
social interactions, cooperation, local self-sufficiency, and communal activities (i.e.,
activities that meet community members’ needs). Most often, the phenomenon of losing
these community characteristics is the topic of concern (Short, 1971).

Social fabric is a metaphor, used to illustrate a concept that is difﬁcult to articulate.
It is sometimes easier to understand a complicated or abstract idea by looking at it through

the ﬁlter provided by a metaphor. A metaphor uses a familiar concept, such as fabric, and

7

ascribes some of its characteristics to another concept. Although the social fabric
metaphor is frequently heard, it is often used without explanation, under the assumption,
perhaps, that it conjurs up such a familiar image that its meaning will be universally
understoood. When using a metaphor to represent such a concept, it is important to
understand the various aspects which make the comparison strong; similarly, it is essential
to recognize the limitations, where the comparison is no longer useful.

Describing communities in social terms is challenging. Many other constructs that
have been used are also metaphors, including community competence (Iscoe, 1974);
community attachment (Kasarda & Janowitz, 1974); community health (Lackey, Burke, &
Peterson, 1987); community satisfaction (Fried, 1984); neighborhood cohesion (Buckner,
1988); and social climate (Krupat & Guild, 1980; Pretty, 1990). These terms describe
communities by using other better known or more easily understood concepts. Perhaps
taken together we get our best understanding of the social community.

In its common usage, social fabric implies the state of how tightly knit the social
networks are in communities. For the purposes of this paper, social fabric will be used to
illustrate not only the condition of a community’s social health, but also the process of
maintaining and improving its social health. The following section describes how fabric
can be a metaphor for communities, by discussing the qualities of fabric that are applicable

to communities.

Intmmnness

Fabric is the result of weaving many individual strands or parts into a meaningful
whole. The parts are interconnected and interdependent. In order for the fabric to be
strong, the parts must be linked together in some way. This interconnection guides the
strands into consistent, sustaining patterns. In communities, people are like strands that
compose fabric, and social networks maintain norms that guide community members.
Strands that stray from the cloth distrupt the pattern or weaken the fabric; people who are
socially atypical can disrupt the functioning of a community. The quality of
interwovenness is a result of interactions, and in a social sense can be equated with
connection and interdependence between community members. The process of weaving
(i.e., how tightly the strands are woven together) is an important determinant of the
strength of the fabric. The social fabric of a community affects the capacity of community
members to live, work, and raise children together in order to sustain the well-being of
present and future generations (Henderson, 1995).
W

Fabric is the substance that provides people with warmth and protection. It
surrounds us throughout our lives. It shields us from the harsh effects of the environment.
Communities also comfort and protect us. Parts that are bound together in fabric are
strongly supported by the other parts. The whole fabric is much stronger than any of the
individuals strands. Communities that have strong social connections provide support for

their members and the whole becomes more than the sum of its parts. In fabric, the sum

9

of the parts creates a ﬁrnctional entity that has a purpose, such as to keep a person warm.
In communities, the sum of the parts can also create an entity that has purposes, such as to
keep its members safe.
Mus

Fabric can be made by an active process of tying many threads together. This
activity creates the pattern and design of the fabric. In a similar fashion, communities are
formed by social networks. Social traditions maintain the fabric of a community over
many years and generations. These traditions contribute to continuity and competence,
each generation teaching the next the skills needed to keep the fabric strong. The weaving
process may also change over time - creating new patterns and designs. One of the
primary “weavers” is family (Tallman, 1986). Other social institutions and organizations,
such as schools and not-for-proﬁts, also contribute to the weaving of the social fabric.
Weaving is comparable to creating connection between people and a sense of belonging to
the community.
Design

Fabrics come in many colors, styles, and designs. There is diversity in both the
parts and the ﬁnal product. In fabric, the strands can be made from different materials,
and the ﬁnal woven product may include strands from the same materials or from a
variety. There is great diversity in individuals and they contribute different qualities to the
whole. Communities are also different from one another; there is no one best pattern or
style. Communities are entities beyond the sum of their parts, so in order to get to know a

community you must understand not only the parts, but the relationships between the

10

parts. Any individual strand may not be seen as important outside the fabric, but inside the
fabric each strand has a purpose and an importance to the whole. The beauty of a design
is an outcome of the interactions between the strands. Though the present pattern may
guide members, the social fabric is continuously being woven. Designs and materials may
change over time, to reﬂect new membership and responses to new challenges.

I . . . E I l l I

As with all metaphors, the use of fabric to describe communities has its limitations.
People in a community have characteristics such as autonomy, mobility, the potential for
conﬂicts, and the ability to make decisions. This activity level is not captured in the fabric
metaphor, because these qualities are not shared by threads in a fabric. In fabric, the
strands are more stationary and consistent, and usually only belong to one fabric. In fabric
there is an outsider who chooses the pattern and the strands, and who weaves the product.
In communities there are still outside forces but the weaving must be done by the strands
themselves.

Two of the important components of social fabric in communities are citizen
participation and mechanisms for achieving local decision-making. These components can
be seen as important “weavers;” that is, they can be viewed as factors that create and
maintain the strength of the social fabric. However, the process of weaving is probably
more intentional than most community building. Efforts to build community oﬁen develop
out of reaction to a common threat, such as an increase in crime, when a problem has
already arisen. It would be desirable to make community building more intentional so that

concerns could be more efﬁciently addressed.

11

The social fabric metaphor, despite its limitations, is a useful tool for describing the
social health of communities. The term elicits an understanding of the interconnections
between the many and often diverse components of a community and the need to keep the
parts of the whole woven together. It is clear that the social fabric is only strong when
these connections are maintained, and that with proper care, the social fabric can support
community members through generations, changing over time to display new patterns. In
the midst of the many terms used to describe the social components of communities, social
fabric is the most useful and most inclusive. It incorporates a sense of belonging to the
community, a feeling of connection to other members, an experience of support ﬁ'om
other members, a sense of personal safety, participation in community affairs, and the
process of enabling that participation. Overall it denotes a measure of social or
community “health.”

Ill [5 S'IEI'EHH: .

Throughout preindustrial history, the social fabric of agrarian-based rural lifestyles
featured characteristics like community homogeneity, interdependence, shared
responsibility, and face-to-face relationships. Community traditions and morality were
incorporated into community life and were not consciously identiﬁed (Cochrun, 1994). As
urban areas developed and communities became larger and more diverse, many people lost
the feeling of community. There is much concern today that the social fabric is unraveling.
Attention to strengthening the social fabric must take into consideration the reality of the
present urban environment, including diversity within neighborhoods. Residents of cities

face the challenge of enhancing the strengths of their communities.

12

Many communities are like very old, very worn pieces of cloth, where the social
fabric has been torn, and where multiple layers of patches have been added. Except for
newer, “planned” communities, it is difﬁcult even to see the patterns of the original fabric.
The challenge is whether to be intentional and work to reweave the cloth, or to continue
haphazardly patching a thin and fragile fabric. It is certainly challenging to return a piece
of fabric to its original shape or design; it is much more common to patch. However,
patches may be incompatible with the original fabric, which can cause disruptions in the
patterns of the community. Strengthening the social fabric will be easier in communities in
which the fabric is not torn completely. It takes time and effort to reweave this fabric, but
the renewed strength will beneﬁt all of the members of the community.

It has been shown that strong social ties beneﬁt people. Shaffer and Anundsen
(1993) compiled studies of the relationships between social and physical health. They
found that people who have a strong sense of community and who feel they are supported
have more positive physical health outcomes. They have better recovery rates from and
lower incidence of disease, including coronary heart disease and breast cancer, better
immune functions, fewer pregnancy complications, and better addiction recovery rates.
People with weak social ties have signiﬁcantly higher death rates than those individuals
who are socially integrated. Berkman and Syme (1979) also found that people with social
relationships have lower mortality rates. Syme (1994) provided evidence that the social
environment has an impact on physical health, not only at the individual level, but at the

group level.

13

Social fabric is also believed to help create a socially healthy community.
Residents of communities with a strong social fabric beneﬁt from shared traditions,
celebrations, and coping. These communities have increased social control (Perkins et al.,
1990), which can help maintain social stability and decrease crime. A high level of
community health would presumably contribute to a low incidence of social problems and
anti-social behavior, including substance abuse, crime, violence, and mental illness (Lackey
et al., 1987). As people become more involved in their community, they become more
invested in it and protective of it, develop more positive self-images and self-conﬁdence,
and prevent self-destructive and anti-social behavior (Lackey et al., 1987).

In the past decade, there has been increased attention devoted to the idea of
healthy cities and communities. In fact, Healthy Cities initiatives and conferences have
brought researchers and practitioners together to discuss ways to improve the quality of
life in urban areas. Healthy Cities initiatives are underway in over 300 cities around the
world (Flynn, 1991). Physical factors, such as the quality of housing (Gilderbloom &
Capek, 1992) and transportation (Giroult, 1987), have been well-researched, and beneﬁt
from being concrete and deﬁnable. Huge efforts are underway to promote the physical
health of community members, such as the Healthy Communities 2000; Model Standards
project, an initiative of the American Public Health Association. This initiative is a
framework for improving public health across the United States through collaboration
between the private, public, and voluntary sectors at the community level (American

Public Health Association).

14

In order to develop a complete picture of the health of a community, it is critical to
focus on social factors (Lackey et al., 1987). Because they are more difﬁcult to identify
and quantify, social factors are less often studied in conjunction with efforts to increase the
health of communities. However, since it is clear that social factors impact individuals and
communities, and since social problems are dramatically impacting urban life, they must be
included in community research and community development activities.

Several questions have arisen in the effort to measure social factors. What is the
social fabric of a community, how do you measure it, how does it impact people, and how
can it be strengthened? In the present conceptualization, social fabric includes the ideas of
sense of community and social interaction, including both the attitudes and behaviors that
tie a neighborhood or other community together. The following review of literature
consolidates the varied research on social components of communities and outlines the
structure of social fabric. It also reviews literature related to four prospective outcomes
of social fabric (volunteering to help others, donating blood, interest in working with
neighbors, and interest in taking on a local leadership role). Finally, the literature review
brieﬂy discusses potential predictors of social fabric.

Research Questions
1. Can a measure of the social fabric of residential blocks, a reﬂection of the social health
of a community, consolidate existing research on the many social components of
communities? Is social fabric a single construct or does it have a factor structure that

reﬂects the major themes in the literature?

15

2. Is a strong social fabric at the block level related to the block residents’ civic
participation at the individual level?

3. What factors of the block or of the block’s residents predict strong social fabric?

Chapter 1

LITERATURE REVIEW

This literature review has three main purposes. First, it summarizes a broad range
of research on the social factors of communities and demonstrates how work done in
many disciplines is related to the social fabric construct. Second, literature is presented
that supports the hypothesis that a strong social fabric facilitates prosocial behavior.
Lastly, variables that have been found to inﬂuence the strength of a community’s social
fabric are discussed.

The Dimensions of Social Fabric: A Multidisciplinary Investigation

Research related to how individuals experience their communities is found in many
disciplines, including psychology, urban studies, sociology, urban planning, political
science, communications, human ecology, business, and community development. Social
fabric is hypothesized in the current study to be the overarching social characteristic of
communities. Further, it is believed to consist of several important components. Over the
past several decades, many common themes have emerged from the multi-disciplinary
literature that suggest which are the most important factors of the social community.
Though this body of work is comprised of different terms and multiple measurement
instruments, this review illustrates the similarities between studies and how each piece is

related to social fabric. The six components hypothesized to comprise social fabric,

16

17
illustrated in Figure 1, are Belonging, Connection, Support, Participation, Empowerment,
and Safety. Through an investigation of existing research, this review shows how these
themes are commonly found in other work on communities.
Belonging

A sense of belonging is a common theme that emerges from the literature as an
important social component of communities (e.g., Kasarda & Janowitz, 1974; McMillan &
Chavis, 1986; Smith, 1975; Unger & Wandersman, 1985). It is a deﬁning characteristic of
social fabric. A sense of belonging relates to an individual’s sense of being woven into the
fabric of her/his community, that he/ she ﬁts into the design of the community, that he/she
will feel compelled to work with other community members toward common goals.
Belonging includes residents thinking of themselves as a community, feeling like a family,
having a feeling of community spirit, sharing values, and being committed to the block’s
future.

Connection

Across many pieces of research on communities, a feeling of residents’ connection
to the neighborhood and to neighbors arises frequently as an important contributor to a
strong social fabric (e.g., Kasarda & Janowitz, 1974; Key, 1965; Lackey et al., 1987;
Smith, 1975). Connection between people creates the social equivalent to the
interwovenness of a fabric. The stronger the connection, the greater support and comfort
that will be felt by others. In addition, connection facilitates the mobilization of the group

in response to community needs. Connection includes such ideas as residents knowing,

18

Participation
I

\t 1!
Social
Fabric

7' K
I

Figure 1 — Social Fabric Components (Hypothesized)

l9

liking, trusting, and socializing with each other, as well as talking to each other about
community problems.
51mm:

Support provided by neighbors is an important indicator of a close community
(e.g., Unger & Wandersman, 1985). This component of social fabric is what many people
feel they lack when they discuss the unraveling of social fabric. Just as cloth comforts and
warms, the support offered by neighbors can comfort and assist others facing life’s
challenges. Support includes taking care of each others’ pets or children, helping each
other out when someone has a problem, watching out for each other, borrowing or
lending things, giving rides to each other, or generally comforting each other.

Throughout the literature on neighborhoods emerges the crucial element of
participation. This component of social fabric can mean informal interaction between
neighbors or formal involvement in community activities and organizations (e.g., Kasarda
& Janowitz, 1974; Key, 1965; Lackey et al., 1987; Smith, 1975). Participation is the
process by which the fabric is woven and maintained. It is how traditions are created and
perpetuated, and how social networks are strengthened. Participation includes
involvement in social activities or community improvement events, such as clean-ups or
ﬂower plantings.

Entrainment
The competence of a community and its members, and the ability to work together

to solve problems contributes to a theme of local empowerment (e.g., Lackey et al., 1987;

20

McMillan & Chavis, 1986). Empowerment is a “process by which individuals gain
control over their own lives and democratic participation in the life of their community”
(Zimmerman & Rappaport, 1988, p. 726). Community members who are empowered feel
that they have both a voice in local decision-making and the power to inﬂuence what their
community will be like in the future. Empowerment enables communities to create their
own unique designs and patterns. Empowerment is assessed by ﬁnding out if residents
feel that they can reduce the amount of crime, resolve local conﬂicts, create solutions to
local problems, contribute to local decision-making, and get things done together.
Safety

Concern for safety, growing out of fear of escalating levels of crime and
decreasing connections between neighborhood residents, is another common issue (e. g,
Perkins et al., 1990; Unger & Wandersman, 1985). This component of communities has
received increasing attention recently, particularly related to urban neighborhoods. The
issue of safety emerges in the popular media as evidence of a deteriorating social fabric
and has been documented as the catalyst in movements to strengthen it (e.g., Levine,
1986). A sense of personal safety is an important part of maintaining residents’ feelings of
interwovenness and support. Safety is assessed in the current study both by asking
residents how safe the neighborhood is as a place to live, and if the area is a safe place to
walk at night.

The following section presents topics found in the literature that are closely related

to social fabric, and which share components with it. Each topic will be described as the

21

authors deﬁned it, and places where the major social fabric components are found will be
noted. Though the varied topics under review often use different terminology, the ideas
are similar. The most relevant topics for the current study include sense of community
(e.g., Glynn, 1981; McMillan & Chavis, 1986), neighborhood cohesion (Buckner, 1988;
Hartnagel, 1979; Smith, 1975), neighboring (Key, 1965; Unger & Wandersman, 1982,
1985), social climate (Krupat & Guild, 1980; Perkins et al., 1990), community solidarity
(Fessler, 1952), community attachment (Kasarda & Janowitz, 1974; Riger & Lavrakas,
1981), community satisfaction (Fried, 1984; Whorton & Moore, 1984), and community
health (Lackey et al., 1987). Each of these topics contributes to an understanding of the
social fabric of communities, but none captures it in its entirety.
Topics Related to Social Fabric

Each of the following research areas is related to social fabric. Several main
themes emerge from this collection of works that deﬁne the social components most
important to an understanding of communities.

SensenLCQmmunitx

Sense of community is a widely used term that is found in the work of a variety of
disciplines. Though deﬁnitions differ, the common theme underlying all of them is a
feeling of belonging to a group and working together toward common goals. Some
researchers in this area discuss sense of community in terms that parallel the concept of
“connection,” while “support” and “empowerment” are also discussed. Because the work

on sense of community is broad, the discussion here will be limited to several key pieces of

22

research that have as their main purpose the deﬁnition, measurement, or theoretical
explanation of sense of community.

Hillery (1955) reviewed the literature on “community” across many ﬁelds in order
to consolidate the multitude of deﬁnitions he had found in common usage. From this
search, he chose 94 deﬁnitions and found 16 different concepts and one area of basic
agreement. Most people across disciplines agreed that “community consists of persons in
social interaction within a geographic area and having one or more additional common
ties” (p. 111). These two common themes indicate that “community” is a place where
individuals have connections with one another, due to informal participation. Hillery’s
work spurred other investigations of what it means to have community.

Glynn (1981) studied psychological sense of community with the goals of
identifying and measuring the behaviors, attitudes, and community characteristics which
represent this concept. He addressed the relationship between psychological sense of
community and the two qualities believed most likely to erode it (competent functioning
and satisfaction), and suggested ways to foster psychological sense of community. His
psychological sense of community measure was comprised of 60 items and six dimensions,
including objective evaluation of community structure, supportive relationships in the
community, similarity and relationship patterns of community residents, individual
involvement in the community, quality of the community environment, and community
security. His psychological sense of community dimensions tap into the ideas of support,

connection, participation, and safety.

23

Perhaps the most frequently referenced work on sense of community is the
deﬁnition and theory piece written by McMillan and Chavis (1986). In their article, these
authors draw from previous research and measures of sense of community and related
constructs, such as group cohesion, neighborhood attachment, behavioral rootedness,
commitment and satisfaction with the neighborhood, and others, in order to identify the
important elements of sense of community.

McMillan and Chavis (1986) deﬁne sense of community using four elements. The
ﬁrst element is “membership,” the feeling of belonging or sharing a sense of personal
relatedness. The concept of membership includes the establishment of boundaries, or
criteria for inclusion. These boundaries create a sense of emotional safety that allows
intimacy to develop. Group membership also fosters personal investment and encourages
the development of a common symbol system. These attributes contribute to a sense of
who is part of the community and who is not. The element of membership clearly
corresponds to the social fabric component of belonging.

The second element is “inﬂuence,” the sense of making a diﬁ’erence to the group
and the group mattering to its members. From the group cohesiveness research, McMillan
and Chavis ( 1986) draw the following conclusions: members are more attracted to a
community in which they feel inﬂuential; the stronger the cohesiveness of the community
is, the stronger the community’s inﬂuence on its members to conform; conformity creates
closeness and validation; and inﬂuence on both a member and the community occurs

concurrently. This element corresponds to the idea of connection between community

24

members, though it also addresses the issue of empowerment due to its attention to the
members’ potential to inﬂuence the community.

“Integration and fulﬁllment of needs” is the third element, which is used to
describe reinforcement, or the motivator of behavior. A strong community provides
reinforcement and fulﬁlls the needs of its members. The status of membership, success of
the community, and competence of community members are rewards of group
membership. The ability of a community to organize and prioritize its activities is
determined by the degree to which values of the group members are shared. A strong
community is able to bring people together for the reciprocal fulﬁllment of members’
needs. Here, the ideas of empowerment and connection are the primary parallels to social
fabric, though fulﬁllment of members’ needs can also be seen as contributing to the
support component.

The ﬁnal element in McMillan and Chavis’s (1986) deﬁnitionis “shared emotional
connection.” Connection results from shared experiences and interactions between group
members. Connection is enhanced by greater frequency of interactions, positive
experiences and relationships, purposeful interactions, important shared events, investment
in the community (including time, money, and intimacy), reward in the presence of the
community, and spiritual bonds between members. The connection component is also an
important piece of the social fabric.

In summary, McMillan and Chavis (1986) deﬁne strong communities as “those that
offer members positive ways to interact, important events to share and ways to resolve

them positively, opportunities to honor members, opportunities to invest in the

25

community, and opportunities to experience a spiritual bond among members” (p. 14).
These authors describe the usefulness of this concept for neighborhoods, suggesting that
community organizers could talk to people about the sense of community in their area,
identifying their problems and concerns, and possible reinforcements and motivators for
working together. By facilitating the interactions between neighbors and a resolution to a
neighborhood concern, the organizer can help increase the sense of community. This
example highlights the authors’ belief that an understanding of sense of community can be
used by lawmakers and planners to develop programs and policies that strengthen and
preserve community. They conclude that their article was an effort to ﬁnd “ways to
strengthen the social fabric with the development of sense of community” (p. 20).

Belonging and connection are areas in which research on sense of community
contributes most strongly to an understanding of social fabric. In addition, the themes of
empowerment, support, participation, and safety are also present in some of the
descriptions.

ll . I I I I C I .

Neighborhood cohesion is the closeness of individuals in a residential community.
Though deﬁnitions differ somewhat, this concept generally encompasses the ideas of
community connection and participation in community activities.

Neighborhood cohesion is conceptualized by Smith (1975) as “a condition of
group solidarity” or the social forces that draw people together (p. 145). He sees this
concept as a multidimensional one that involves four main components, use of physical

facilities, personal identiﬁcation, social interaction, and value consensus. The “use of

26

physical facilities” means the degree to which residents use local space and buildings,
including commercial, service, and recreational facilities. This component reﬂects (a) how
oriented local residents are to the area, and (b) the interdependence that facilities
maintenance requires; these aspects can be seen as parallel to the connection and
participation areas of social fabric.

The level of “personal identiﬁcation” is a psychological component, contributing to
individuals’ sense of belonging to the area, identiﬁcation with the area and its residents,
feelings that neighbors are friendly and helpﬁrl, and feelings of liking and being satisﬁed .
with the area (Smith, 1975). This component includes belonging and potentially support.
The third component, “social interaction,” includes both informal neighboring activity and
formal membership or participation in local organizations, which are clearly similar to the
social fabric components of participation and connection. Fourth, cohesion involves a
consensus among neighbors on certain values and behaviors, including the roles and
operations of community institutions, such as schools, police, and local government.
Consensus also may occur related to norms of home and lawn maintenance, visiting,
borrowing, and so forth. Value consensus can be seen as reﬂecting a connection between
residents that is manifested in its inﬂuence on participation.

Smith (1975) uses several different terms to parallel the concept of neighborhood
cohesion, including social cohesion and neighborhood solidarity. In looking for measures
that approach his conceptualization of neighborhood cohesion, he includes work on
satisfaction with the neighborhood, social interaction with neighbors, consensus on values

and attitudes, neighborliness, and attachment to the local neighborhood.

27

Hartnagel ( 1979) examined the relationship between fear of crime and
neighborhood cohesion. He operationalized neighborhood cohesion as how often
respondents got together with neighbors (“for a chat”) and how many of the adults in the
neighborhood respondents would know by name if they met them on the street. This
deﬁnition of neighborhood cohesion directly relates to the social fabric component of
connection. Hartnagel used two other dependent variables, social activity and affect for
the community, which were separate from neighborhood cohesion. Social activity was
measured by asking respondents how often they went out for entertainment and how often
they spent a social evening with friends who live outside the neighborhood. Affect for the
community was measured by asking respondents their degree of satisfaction with the
neighborhood and city as places to live. Social activity ﬁts well with the social fabric
component of participation.

Buckner (1988) also details the components of neighborhood cohesion. In his
conceptualization, neighborhood cohesion represents a synthesis of psychological sense of
community, attraction to neighborhood, and social interaction within a neighborhood. A
neighborhood high in cohesion has residents who feel a strong sense of belonging,
fellowship, and identity with the group; who report frequent acts of neighboring; and who
are strongly attracted to the area and want to remain there. His deﬁnition of
neighborhood cohesion includes the social fabric components of belonging, participation,
and connection.

Buckner found that attraction to neighborhood and neighboring were highly

intercorrelated and he suggests that past efforts to assess neighborhood cohesion, even

28

though they used different variables, have probably been measuring the same construct.
He found that his three components could be meaningﬁrlly combined. His measure
demonstrated good internal consistency and test-retest reliability at the individual level of
analysis, as well as good discriminatory power and criterion-related validity at the
neighborhood level of analysis. This issue is one of the main points that the current
research will investigate; that is, it will study whether not these individual components are
distinct or if they are part of an overarching, unidimensional construct.

Neighborhood cohesion, depending on the researcher, is comprised primarily of
the connection and participation components of social fabric. In addition, a sense of
belonging and identiﬁcation has been noted, as well as the minimal involvement of support
from neighbors.

W

Neighboring is generally deﬁned as social interactions between neighbors. This
construct has undergone development over time, and now incorporates the social fabric
components of connection, support, belonging, and empowerment, in addition to the
original emphasis on participation.

Key (1965) chose to look at the frequency component of neighboring; that is, he
studied the number of “contacts with other individuals where opportunities for meaningful
interactions may occur” (p. 380). His scale is comprised of seven dichotomous items that
tap into various types of prospective interactions between the respondent and her/his
neighbors, such as “How often do you stop and visit casually with your neighbors?,”

“How often do you borrow things ﬁ'om or lend things to your neighbor?,” and “How often

29

do you go to parties or get-togethers that include solely or mostly people from the
neighborhood?” These items are coded as a one for answers of “at least once a month”
and as a zero for answers of “less often than once a month.” His items cover the social
fabric components of connection, support, and participation, respectively.

Unger and Wandersman (1982) describe neighboring as social interactions
between neighbors that potentially create an informal resource whereby people provide
social and emotional support to one another and solve problems together in the residential
environment. Their neighboring measure included 10 items, such as the number of people
on the block that the respondent would recognize, know the names of, see socially,
consider close ﬁiends, feel comfortable borrowing from or lending to, feel comfortable
asking for a ride ﬁom, and others.

In a subsequent article, Unger and Wandersman (1983) detailed their ﬁndings that
blocks where neighboring activities occur are more likely to develop successﬁil block
organizations. The authors deﬁned successfully organized blocks as having at least three
residents who were members of the block organization. Members in these organizations
belonged to signiﬁcantly more community organizations than nonmembers but tended to
“neighbor” less before the block was organized. The authors hypothesize that residents
who already have high neighboring may feel less need to join a block organization, since
they are able to solve neighborhood problems and address their concerns and needs for
support informally. Participation in block organizations signiﬁcantly increased members’
neighboring activities. This article demonstrates the relationship between neighboring and

the social fabric components of empowerment and participation. Participation in

3O

neighborhood organizations increased neighboring, but it was also a mechanism for
addressing block concerns (empowerment). Unger and Wandersman state that “the
organization appears to have enhanced the block’s ‘social fabric...’” (p. 299).

Unger and Wandersman (1985) continued to study neighboring and broadened
their deﬁnition to include the following three components: social, cognitive, and affective.
The social component involves emotional, instrumental, and information support and
social network linkages. Social support involves the various ways that neighbors provide
resources to each other. Social networks are the patterns of connections and the
frequency of interactions between people.

The cognitive component involves cognitive mapping, the physical environment,
and symbolic communication. Cognitive maps are “spatial representations that organize
[residents’] knowledge and experiences of their neighborhood environment” (Unger &
Wandersman, 1985, p. 150). They include the aspects of the environment which are
relevant to a speciﬁc individual. Cognitive maps, for example, may help a person decide
where to interact with others and where to travel, in order to feel safe. Aspects of the
physical environment also communicate meanings even without social interactions.
Residents may use their yards, for example, to express themselves or to convey messages,
such as territoriality, privacy, or pride.

Three affective bonds are suggested by Unger and Wandersman (1985) to
comprise the affective component of neighboring. These bonds are a sense of mutual aid,
a sense of community, and an attachment to place. Residents may feel that if they needed

help, they could rely on a neighbor, they may develop feelings of membership and

31

belongingness with the neighborhood, and they may develop a sense of attachment to their
place of residence. These authors describe neighboring as “the human glue that binds the
macro physical and social aspects of a neighborhood with neighborhood organizations and
neighborhood development” (p. 162).

Neighboring is an important part of community life. Depending on the researcher,
this topic involves connection, support, participation, empowerment, and belonging. In
addition, the cognitive component (Unger & Wandersman, 1985) can relate speciﬁcally to
the issue of safety.

5 . I CI

All of the social fabric components are found in at least one research team’s
conceptualization of social climate, though none of the deﬁnitions alone include all of
them.

The social climate of an environment is that setting’s “personality.” Moos (1976)
describes in detail the environmental determinants of human behavior and pays particular
attention to the impact that a setting has on the individuals within it. The social climate
effects the attitudes, moods, behaviors, physical health, and sense of well-being of
individuals. Three broad categories of dimensions form social environments, relationship
dimensions, personal development dimensions, and system maintenance and system
change dimensions. In the relationship dimensions, Moos includes involvement or
cohesiveness (such as belonging, participation, commitment, and emotional connection),
support (such as concern for others, efforts to help one another, cohesion, and open

communication), and expressiveness (which is signiﬁcant only in certain environments). It

32

is these dimensions that ﬁt most closely with the social components of communities
described by other researchers. For example, belonging, participation, connection, and
support are clearly part of Moos’ conceptualization.

Krupat and Guild (1980) describe their process of developing a measure of social
climate. After generating and testing items and scales, they arrived at six factors that

comprise the social climate of urban areas. Their factors are “warmth and closeness,”

,9 “ 3’ 6‘ ,9 ‘6

“activity/entertainment, alienation/isolation, good life, privacy,” and “uncaring.”
These factors combine items about people (e.g., “people gossip”) and items about the
environment itself (e.g., “relaxed atmosphere”). The authors suggest that social climate
measures can be useful in identifying social changes that could produce more pleasant
residential climates. They could also be useful in helping individuals or organizations
select environments to maximize person-environment ﬁt. Krupat and Guild’s deﬁnition of
social climate incorporates the social fabric components of support, participation, and
connection.

The community social environment was also investigated by Perkins et al. (1990)
in the context of understanding the relationships between participation in block
associations and crime-related block-level social and physical variables. They studied 48
residential blocks ﬁ'om three neighborhoods in New York City. Their social climate
measure included the following four components: sense of community, communitarianism
(for example, the importance of a sense of community and participation with neighbors),

perceived block association efﬁcacy, and block satisfaction. In addition, items addressed

issues such as fear of crime, community problems, neighboring, and informal social

33

control. Social climate, in the form of the neighboring, perceived incivilities, block
satisfaction, and perceived block association efﬁcacy scales, was positively and
signiﬁcantly correlated with block-level participation. The authors conclude that social
factors facilitate the participation of residents in block associations. Perkins et al. include
participation, safety, and empowerment in their deﬁnition of social climate.

Social climate is the personality of the social environment. By combining research
done by different groups of authors on this topic, all six of the social fabric components,
belonging, support, connection, participation, safety, and empowerment, are found.

Community solidarity is a measure of the degree of consensus that exists in a
community regarding social behavior. It primarily relates to the empowerment and
belonging components of social fabric.

Fessler’s (1952) work on community solidarity focussed on eight categories of
social behavior of members of rural communities. The eight categories were as follows:
community spirit, interpersonal relations, family responsibility toward the community,
schools, churches, economic behavior, local government, and tension areas. The 40-item
index demonstrated high internal consistency, split-half reliability, and discriminant
validity. Examples of empowerment-type items are “People won’t work together to get
things done for the community,” and “The mayor and councilmen run the town to suit
themselves.” Belonging is demonstrated in the items, “The community tries hard to help

its young people along,” and “I feel very much that I belong here.”

34
CnmmuniILAtIaszhmmt

Connection and participation are the predominant social fabric factors in
community attachment, though belonging also comes into play. This research topic relates
to how socially tied to the community residents are, and the degree to which residents
have established social networks.

Kasarda and Janowitz’s (1974) measure of community attachment includes
“community attitudes and sentiments” (such as belonging, interest in local happenings, and
emotional attachment to the area), “local social bonds (networks)” (including the number
of people respondents know in the area, the number of ﬁiends and relatives living in the
area), and the degree of participation in formal associations within the local community
(including work-related, political, educational, religious, charitable, civic, and social
groups). Additionally, one item asked about the extent of informal participation in local
activities. Their conceptualization of community attachment includes belonging,
connection, and participation.

Riger and Lavrakas (1981) identify two dimensions of community attachment,
which they also call “neighborhood integration,” social bonding and physical rootedness.
The social bonding factor is composed of three items tapping the extent to which the
person has formed personal relationships within the neighborhood. The rootedness factor,
also comprised of three items, measures the extent to which the person is settled in her/his
neighborhood. These dimensions can be viewed as reﬂecting residents’ degree of
connection to their neighborhoods. The authors identiﬁed respondents as either high or

low on each factor and then created the following four categories of respondents: low

35

bonded/low rootedness, low bonded/high rootedness, high bonded/low rootedness, and
high bonded/high rootedness. They then created typologies of community attachment
based on these four categories, and compared each group on demographic, behavioral,
and attitudinal variables. These typologies related to the degree to which each group
participates in community activities.

Community attachment incorporates belonging into a construct that is based on the
degree to which community members are connected to and participate in the
neighborhood.

Community satisfaction is a construct that incorporates many of the topics that
have been discussed thus far, including social interactions, sense of community, and the
responsiveness of local government to citizen concerns. Community satisfaction includes
the social fabric components of connection, participation, and empowerment.

Community satisfaction is an important variable that affects overall life satisfaction
(Fried, 1984). Fried delineates the stnrcture of community satisfaction using factor
analyses of multiple evaluations of housing, neighborhood, and community satisfaction.
He differentiates community satisfaction from community/residential/neighborhood
attachment, stating that attachment is a deeper, more conceptually meaningful concept
that addresses the concern for the decline of community. Community satisfaction,
however, is a core indicator of attachment.

Fried (1984) identiﬁed four community satisfaction factors, local residential

Satisfaction, local convenience satisfaction, local interpersonal satisfaction, and local

36

political satisfaction. The two types of satisfaction most relevant to social fabric are local
interpersonal satisfaction and local political satisfaction. Local interpersonal satisfaction
assesses the geographic closeness of people providing social interaction, neighborhood
interaction, closeness of interactions with close and peripheral friends, and the sense of
community in the local area. This type of satisfaction involves the connections between
people in the community. Local political satisfaction covers satisfaction with the delivery
of services and the responsiveness of local government to citizen participation, including
responsiveness to local needs, and the effect of local political participation on local
decisions. This type of satisfaction involves the social fabric components of participation
and empowerment.

Though Fried (1984) argues that community satisfaction contains four distinct
factors, Whorton and Moore (1984) operationalize this construct as a single,
unidimensional factor with four items. The coeﬂicient alpha for their community
satisfaction scale was .68. The four items comprising this factor loaded most highly on the
intended factor when factor analyzed with the rest of the survey items. This point is used
to illustrate the debate regarding whether these social components of communities are
unidimensional or multidimensional. The current study will look at this issue in terms of
the social fabric construct.

Community satisfaction is related to social fabric in that it addresses the
connection, participation, and empowerment components of communities. Work in this

area also includes a discussion of the relationships between satisfaction, sense of

37
community, and neighborhood attachment, other topics that have previously been shown
to relate to social fabric.
Communimﬂcalth

Community health is a construct closely related to social fabric that focusses on the
empowerment component. It is primarily involved with how community members work
together to perform community development functions. The community health construct
also incorporates participation, connection, belonging, and support.

Community health is described as the goal of community development (Lackey et
al., 1987). A sociological and developmental concept, community health is deﬁned by
four attributes, (a) attitudes and values, (b) capacities, (c) organization, and ((1) leadership.
Attitudes and values strongly inﬂuence behavior, including the degree to which citizens
participate in community affairs. Healthy communities will have members who (a) take
pride in their community, (b) hold a positive vision of the community’s future, (c) accept
the values and norms of the larger society, (d) feel commitment to the community (they
plan to stay in the community and are willing to work toward community improvement),
(e) have conﬁdence that community members can resolve community problems, (1)
cooperate with each other (members are willing to work together and are provided with
opportunities to participate in decision-making and implement community activities), and
(g) care about each other’s welfare (are ﬁiendly to each other, welcome newcomers, and
accept each other). These requirements include connection to the community and

empowerment of its members to work together and participate in local decision-making.

38

In order for community members to identify and resolve community problems, they
must have certain capacities (Lackey et al., 1987). Community members and
organizations must be able to perform community development ﬁrnctions, including
identifying and agreeing on long term community goals, problems, objectives, and
interrelationships between problems. They must be able to determine the inﬂuence of
various factors, assign timetables and priorities, identify resources, develop plans, assess
and evaluate progress, and resolve conﬂict among competing interests. In order to
perform these functions, community members must possess knowledge and skills for
selecting and implementing the appropriate techniques to accomplish tasks associated with
each community development function. These functions are important strategies for
facilitating community empowerment.

Lackey et al. (1987) also propose that healthy communities have the capability to
perform these ﬁrnctions on a community-wide or neighborhood-wide basis, due to an
organizational structure in which citizens volunteer their time for community development
activities outside of the realm of formal government structure. It is essential that full
community participation occurs, so mechanisms must exist to ensure opportunities for all
people and groups. In addition, it is important that community members have the
perception that opportunities to participate do exist. The community organization and its
leadership must (a) exercise democratic participation, (b) have a positive vision of the
future, (c) nurture its members, (d) have a problem-solving outlook, (e) engage in the
development of leadership and membership abilities, and (f) establish productive links with

other organizations and agencies inside and outside of the community.

39

Finally, these authors stipulate that healthy communities provide leadership
opportunities for all members of the community and contain mechanisms for continual
renewal and education (Lackey et al., 1987). The leaders must have a broad view of the
community and must practice the values of a healthy community as described earlier.

Lackey et a1. (1987) call for the development of a community health survey with
four scales corresponding to the attributes that comprise their deﬁnition. They propose
the survey be used to create community proﬁles, to compare communities on similar
characteristics, and to establish a measure of community health. These authors argue that
the human aspects are more important to community health than a community’s physical
attributes or appearance. They hypothesize that communities that score high on
community health would score low on social problems and anti-social behavior.

Duhl’s (1984, 1986) conceptualization of healthy cities ﬁts well with Lackey et
al.’s (1987) descriptions. Like Lackey et al., Duhl focusses on the importance of involving
all groups of people in decision-making to address community issues. He believes that
healthy cities are ones with strong neighborhoods and grassroots leadership. Healthy
cities do not disenfranchise any groups. These characteristics describe the empowerment
theme. In order for residents to gain a voice, they must come together and participate in
community affairs. Communication and networks are important components of healthy
cities that ﬁt into the connection theme.

Duhl (1984, 1986) uses the metaphor of a human organism to explain the nature of
cities as living, growing, changing entities, rather than simply economic or physical

structures. As part of the metaphor, Duhl describes the idea of reciprocal maintenance,

40

that is, the requirement that each part of the organism -- or city -- must be assisted or
nourished by the others. This philosophy parallels the component of support in the social
fabric conceptualization. In addition, Duhl describes healthy cities as involving values and
having an identity that its residents can share. These qualities correspond to the belonging
component of social fabric.

Community health provides a focus on the importance of empowerment in order
for social fabric to be strong. Empowerment occurs through citizen participation. A
healthy community has members who feel commitment to the area (connection) and who
have a positive vision of the community’s future (belonging). Additionally, a healthy
community is one that provides assistance and nourishment to all its members (support).

5.1mm

Several common themes emerge in the many deﬁnitions of social components of
communities that conceptually ﬁt into the social fabric idea. A sense of belonging has
been a common theme (e.g., Kasarda & Janowitz, 1974; McMillan & Chavis, 1986; Smith,
1975; Unger & Wandersman, 1985). The feeling of connection to the neighborhood and
to neighbors has also arisen frequently (e.g., Kasarda & Janowitz, 1974; McMillan &
Chavis, 1986; Riger & Lavrakas, 1981). Support provided by neighbors has been an
important indicator of close communities (e.g., Unger & Wandersman, 1985).
Throughout many of the descriptions, participation has emerged, both in terms of informal
interactions between neighbors and through formal involvement in community activities
and organizations (e.g., Kasarda & Janowitz, 1974; Key, 1965; Lackey et al., 1987; Smith,

1975). Concerns for safety, growing out of fear of increasing crime and decreasing

_41

connections between neighborhood residents, has been another common issue (e.g.,
Perkins et al., 1990; Unger & Wandersman, 1985). Finally, the competence of a
community and its members, and their ability to work together to solve problems, has
contributed to a theme of local empowerment (e. g., Duhl, 1986; Lackey et al., 1987;
McMillan & Chavis, 1986).

Table 1 summarizes how the social components of communities described above
overlap with the concept of a social fabric. Taken together, these research topics provide
a complete picture of the social community. Across multiple researchers, several of these
themes incorporate all six of the hypothesized social fabric components, though no single
study has previously provided a measure of all six themes. Some of the studies have even
begun to compare these topics to each other, such as sense of community and social
support (Pretty, Andrewes, & Collett, 1994) and sense of community and social climate
(Pretty, 1990).

The measure of social fabric used in the present study includes items related to the
six components, belonging, connection, support, participation, empowerment, and safety,
that cover the breadth of issues related to the social context of communities. Social fabric
is a comprehensive composite variable that provides a complete picture of aspects of
communities that are widely discussed and which have important implications for the
quality of life of residents of urban communities. The extensive use of the six components
throughout the literature on communities indicates the degree to which people are trying
to understand the living, human side of cities. Exploring social fabric provides a way to

capture all of these important elements in a coherent way.

42

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 1

I." ...' "w . I... '-._t.-ot ’_ {I WHY. I ”I" ..I

Social Components of Communities B C S P E Sa
Sense of community x X x x x x
Neighborhood cohesion x X x X
Neighboring x X X X x x
Social climate x x x X x x
Community solidarity X X
Community attachment x X x
Community satisfaction x x x
Community health x X x X X

Key: B = Belonging C = Connection S = Support

P = Participation E = Empowerment Sa = Safety
x = mentioned by at least one researcher in the area
X = mentioned by all researchers in the area
This study will use factor analysis to determine whether or not these six
components are distinct factors or if they comprise a unidimensional measure of social
fabric. If socially strong communities, and the factors that strengthen them, can be
identiﬁed, programs can then be implemented that build these strengths in other
neighborhoods.
Measuring Behaviors and Attitudes
Through review of the literature and comparison of the many constructs that relate
to the social fabric, one distinction became apparent. Some of the constructs focus
primarily on attitudinal ideas and others on behavioral ideas, though most of them have

components that reﬂect both. Affective ideas include feelings and perceptions, such as a

43

feeling of belonging or satisfaction, or a perception of neighbors as being ﬁiendly. The
affective component relates to the qualities of a fabric, such as its interwovenness and the
support and comfort provided. Behavioral ideas include activities and actions, such as
participation in community events or neighborhood watch groups, or acts of helping a
neighbor. The behavioral component relates to the processes of weaving, creating,
maintaining the fabric. This section will brieﬂy discuss the distinction between these ideas
and whether it is a meaningful one for the social fabric construct.

Some researchers have focussed attention on the affective components of
community, including the social climate of a community (Krupat & Guild, 1980),
satisfaction with the community (Fried, 1984; O’Brien & Ayidiya, 1991), and the

psychological sense of community (e. g., Glynn, 1981). Social climate includes such

3, 6‘ 1, “

affective components as “warmth/closeness, alienation/isolation, uncaring,” and so
forth. Psychological sense of community includes such attitudes as feelings of belonging
and identiﬁcation, shared emotional connection, and emotional safety (McMillan &
Chavis, 1986). Interestingly, even though these concepts are clearly affective, the
operationalization of the constructs often includes behavioral components. For example,
social climate, as deﬁned by Krupat and Guild (1980), includes items related to activity
and entertainment. Sense of community as deﬁned by McMillan and Chavis (1986)
includes the concept of community members inﬂuencing each other and meeting each

others’ needs. O’Brien and Ayidiya’s (1991) neighborhood community construct includes

such affective items as the perception of ﬁt in the neighborhood and having things in

44

common with neighbors and behavioral items such as how often respondents socialize
with neighbors and numbers of crimes.

There are also components of communities that relate directly to behavioral ideas,
including participation in activities. The concept of neighboring is ﬁ'equently found in
literature related to the social components of local communities (e.g., Unger &
Wandersman, 1982, 1983). The concept of neighboring involves the idea that neighbors
interact informally to provide socioemotional support and material goods to each other, as
well as solve problems in their residential environment. These same authors, however,
later expanded the deﬁnition of neighboring to include three components, including social,
cognitive, and affective components (Unger & Wandersman, 1985). Similarly, citizen
participation in community activities is viewed as a behavioral construct, though in the
discussion of community attachment (Riger & Lavrakas, 1981), for example, participation
is closely tied to the connection residents feel with their community.

Articles that describe measure development (e.g., Buckner, 1988) have
demonstrated that scales which combine affective and behavioral items demonstrate good
internal consistency and validity. The social fabric measure of the current study includes
both affective (e.g., “People on this block feel connected to each other”) and behavioral
(“People on this block participate in social activities”) items. Factor analyses will help
determine if these items ﬁt well together in their respective sub-scales, or if they need to

be separated into attitudinal and behavioral groups.

45
Identifying a Meaningful Community

For decades, discussions have occurred regarding the expansion of the deﬁnition
of “community” from one related to “place” to one that includes “process” (Dunham,
1986). No longer is where a person lives the only, Or perhaps even the most important,
community he/she has. Dunham argues that people have both communities of place and of
interest (Cochrun, 1994). However, even communities of place are varied. Some
research refers to rural communities (e.g., Robinson & Wilkinson, 1995; Fessler, 1952),
workplaces (e.g., Klein & D’Aunno, 1986; Lambert & Hopkins, 1995 ), or specialized
residential communities like universities (e.g., Pretty, 1990). Cochrun suggests that the
modern experience of loss of sense of community could be due to a “misalignment
between a person’s community of place and community of interest” (p. 92). Glynn (1986)
found that people who included “neighborhood” in their deﬁnitions of community scored
higher on actual sense of community, community satisfaction, and community
competence. Chavis and Wandersman (1990) argue that the neighborhood level offers the
greatest opportunities for planners to inﬂuence sense of community.

Neighborhoods and towns, despite their decreasing degree of importance to a total
deﬁnition of community, are still where people live, raise children, and recreate. They
offer many opportunities for interactions and for building community, for strengthening
the social fabric that supports, protects, and guides us. In particular, urban problems are
often tied to place, and in order to remedy them, the community of place needs to be the
focus of community building. The current study focusses on community and social fabric

in urban neighborhoods.

46

Levels of Conceptualization and Measurement

One of the purposes of this study is to investigate the appropriateness of the
residential block as a level of analysis for research on community phenomena. Though the
individual level of analysis is important and contributes useful knowledge, a broader
perspective needs to be taken in order to understand the effects of context on individuals
(e.g., Senn, 1988). Senn, a social psychologist, describes the drawbacks of an over-
reliance on individualistic explanations of social behavior, because individualistic theories
“ignore the context-dependent nature of much social behavior” (p. 49). He concludes that
“individuals are so intricately interwoven in a fabric of social relations that a representation
of the individual separated from the social context is theoretically inadequate” (p. 50). In
the current study, prosocial behavior is still considered an individual behavior, but it is
viewed in the context of a residential environment. It is hypothesized that the strength of
the social fabric in this environment will inﬂuence individuals’ behaviors.

'An alternative theoretical explanation is offered by organizational psychologists to
this social psychological conceptualization. Schneider (1987a, b) proposed the attraction-
selection-attrition (ASA) framework as a way of understanding person-environment ﬁt in
organizations. The ASA model states that organizations are ﬁrnctions of the kinds of
people they contain, and that the attributes of the people themselves, not the nature of the
external environment or the organizational structure, are the underlying determinants of
organizational behavior (Schneider, 1987b). This framework can be applied to residential
blocks or communities by assuming (a) that people on blocks choose to live there because

they perceive the people there to be similar to themselves (attraction), (b) that the block

47

would recruit and encourage people to live there who had attributes desired by others on
the block (selection), and (c) that people who found that they did not ﬁt in on the block
would move (attrition). The result of this cycle in both organizations, and presumably on
blocks, is that over time the people on the block would become more similar to each
other, that the block would become more homogeneous with regards to its members
(Schneider, Goldstein, & Smith, 1995). This theory would be used to explain differences
between the culture or climate of different organizations or communities.

Many researchers have tested this theory in organizational contexts with mixed
results. For example, Bretz, Ash, and Dreher (1987) found only weak support for the
hypotheses that personality characteristics of employees and organizations affected
individuals’ selection of organizations and that people attracted to a particular
organization are more homogeneous than the applicant pool. George (1990) found
evidence that the personality characteristics of group members inﬂuenced the affective
tones of their work groups. She also found that negative affective tone had a negative
effect on prosocial behavior, but that positive aﬁ’ective tone had no effect. She concludes
that she found indirect evidence to support Schneider’s ASA framework. Jackson et al.
(1991) studied turnover and group heterogeneity in top management teams. They found
that the turnover rates of groups were predicted by group heterogeneity and that
individual turnover was predicted by dissimilarity to other group members. As their
measure of dissimilarity they used demographic characteristics of the individuals rather
than personality characteristics, because demographic characteristics are differences

individuals bring with them to the organization. These researchers wanted to rule out

48
conformity and socialization effects as explanations for homogeneity. Jackson et al. did
not ﬁnd evidence that similarity led to selection bias, as would be expected in the ASA
model.

Schneider et a1. (1995) provided an updated analysis of the ASA framework by
reviewing the current literature. They found that the literature provides indirect support
for the proposal that organizational founders and top managers have long-terrn effects on
organizations, due to their establishment of organizational goals, through the ASA cycle.
They also found direct and indirect evidence that over time organizations become
relatively homogeneous regarding their members.

The ASA ﬁ'amework is one explanation for differences that are found in the
“personalities” of various residential communities. It is important to remember that the
ASA cycle takes place over time. While people have some choice over where they live,
other factors besides the climate of the block - such as income constraints or location --
may have overriding inﬂuence on whether or not a person stays or leaves. Some blocks
do have active members, and there is historical evidence of discrimination in housing in
order to select residents with desirable characteristics. However, organizations arguably
have greater power to select and retain organizational members than blocks do.

These theoretical discussions focus on the importance of looking at the
interrelationships between context and individual when trying to learn about social
behavior. Community developers often face the difficult task of choosing an appropriate
target for their work. The Healthy Cities efforts that are displayed nationally are large

scale projects, usually city-wide strategies, to improve the infrastructure or physical health

49

characteristics of the city’s residents. When looking at social characteristics, it is
important to attend to a “community” to which people can relate. Particularly because
measures of social components, including social fabric, illustrate social interactions and
identiﬁcation with communities, the city or neighborhood can be too large an area
(Davidson & Cotter, 1986). Neighborhoods can also be difﬁcult to deﬁne geographically,
or may be interpreted differently for different residents. On the other hand, studies at the
individual level are also problematic. Because the research on social fabric, and other
social components of communities, requires looking at interactions between people, the
community level of measurement is most useful (Hill, 1996).

The current study uses the residential block as the unit of analysis for social fabric.
The block, deﬁned as including houses on both sides of a street, between cross streets, is
small enough to assess meaningful interactions between residents and large enough to
involve interactions that are community level rather than household or family level. In
addition, blocks are usually straightforward to deﬁne geographically. The block level of
measurement has been used in studies involving neighboring in Nashville (Unger &
Wandersman, 1983) and community participation in New York City (Perkins et al., 1990),
however, both of these studies used blocks with larger numbers of residents than the
blocks in the current study.

Social F abric’s Role in Improving Cities

Sense of community and a strong social fabric have been hypothesized to

contribute to individuals’ willingness to engage in civic participation and voluntary

activities (Chavis & Wandersman, 1990). Chavis and Wandersman found that sense of

50

community stimulated satisfaction with the residential environment, encouraged
neighboring relations, and enhanced perceptions of individual and group empowerment.
They found that a neighborhood sense of community can be both a cause and effect of
local action. .

Sense of community has been linked to political participation (Davidson & Cotter,
1989), social climate has been linked to participation in block associations (Perkins et al.,
1990), and a sense of community identity and shared community interests have been linked
to zoning process participation (Hutcheson & Prather, 1988).

Social fabric is being investigated because it is hypothesized to contribute to the
health of communities. Speciﬁcally, this study will test whether social fabric at the
community level has an impact on prosocial behaviors of individual residents.

BmmiﬂBelnxiQt

It is important to identify if social fabric as conceptualized here has any impact on
individuals. Social fabric is expected to be a positive component of communities and to
contribute to an improved quality of life for residents. One way social fabric can make a
positive contribution is for it to facilitate prosocial or helping behavior. People who
know, trust, and interact with each other will be more likely to help each other (Hinde &
Grobel, 1991). For this reason, it is expected that the social fabric components of
connection, support, and belonging would be most related to individual helping.

Prosocial behavior is action undertaken voluntarily and intentionally to beneﬁt
someone else (Kohn, 1990). This category of behavior is broad and includes many levels,

types, and motivations, including helping, cooperation, and exchange (Bar-Tal & Raviv,

51

1982). Helping behavior is seen as one type of prosocial behavior that encompasses
sharing, aiding, and donating. It is deﬁned as an act that beneﬁts others with no external
rewards promised a priori in return (Bar-Ta] & Raviv, 1982).
W

The literature on helping behavior focusses to a large extent on the development of
altruism and cooperation in children (e.g., Eisenberg, 1982) and the differentiation of
various forms, motivations, and patterns of helping (e.g., Kohn, 1990). The research on
developmental components of helping describes the stages of moral development and the
acquisition of reasoning skills using social learning theory, cognitive learning models, and .
equity theory (Bar-Ta] & Raviv, 1982; Smithson, Amato, & Pearce, 1983).

The components contributing to helping behavior include individual states and
traits, and environmental and situational factors (Kohn, 1990). Individual states involve
the person’s moods, level of conﬁdence in the situation, and feelings of guilt or
responsibility. Individual traits include self-esteem, locus of control, assertiveness, and
values. Examples of environmental factors are community size and density, while
situational factors include the context in which helping is presented, such as how direct or
ambiguous the need is, and how similar the respondent feels to the person needing help
(Kohn, 1990). In the current study, it is hypothesized that communities in which there is a
stronger social fabric will produce individuals who have a greater likelihood of helping
others.

Kohn (1990) describes factors in the category of individual states that contribute

to helping. While contented people are more likely to help others, sympathetic sadness or

52

guilt (speciﬁcally guilt that contributes to a feeling of responsibility) also cause people to
help. Anger tends to decrease prosocial behavior. Critical to “state” effects on helping is
the sense of being proﬁcient at the activity in question. That is, a person must feel
conﬁdent that he/she can help in order for behavior to occur. In addition, self-reﬂection, if
it reminds us of moral obligations, can also increase helping. Though the current study
focusses on the community characteristic of social fabric, it is expected that the quality of
social fabric will inﬂuence individual states. For example, communities in which members
are connected to each other and supportive of one another are likely to produce in those
members feelings of responsibility toward one another that may result in helping. In
addition, residents of communities with strong social fabric are likely to be more satisﬁed,
which in turn could increase the likelihood of demonstrated helping behavior.

Many individual traits have been identiﬁed as contributing to helping, although
situational factors often interact with these effects (Kohn, 1990). A potential helper must
have a moderate level of self-esteem, an internal locus of control, and a general sense of
competence, as well as assertiveness and interpersonal skills, in order to help. If a strong
social fabric reﬂects empowerment and participation, then it could contribute to increased
self-esteem and sense of competence in community members. There is not a connection
between religious affiliation and prosocial activities, including helping a neighbor or
participating in neighborhood organizations. In fact, people who attend church were
found to be more intolerant of ethnic minorities than nonattendees. Helpers are more

likely to endorse egalitarian political views, and people with high levels of moral reasoning

are more likely to be politically liberal.

 

53

According to Kohn (1990), most studies do not demonstrate gender differences in
helping, though men and women have somewhat different conditions under which they
feel comfortable helping. He suggests that men prefer task-oriented or active helping,
while women are likely to help emotionally. Levine, Martinez, Brase, and Sorenson
(1994) found that men were more likely to help a stranger in some situations, and
attributed this difference to women’s fear of interacting with strangers, especially when the
strangers are men. In part because of these differences in the forms of helping, this study :
assessed “helping” generally, without specifying particular activities.

Situational factors are very important determinants of helping. In general, the
more people who are present, the more responsibility for helping is diffused, decreasing
the likelihood of helping. Small towns are often lauded for the level of helpfulness,
cooperativeness, and kindness of the residents, while cities are viewed as places where
people are less likely to help one another (Kohn, 1990). However, a meta-analysis on
population size demonstrates that there is a nonlinear relationship with helping. Steblay
(cited in Eisenberg, 1991) found that for instances of helping a stranger, in several
Western countries, regardless of whether bystanders were present, and regardless of the
gender or age of the person needing assistance, levels of helping increased linearly as
population increased for small rural communities (up to population 50,000), levels were
highest in cities with 60,000 to 300,000 people, and levels were relatively low in cities of
1,000,000 or more. Levine et a1. (1994) found a signiﬁcant negative correlation with
helping for cities with populations from 350,000 to over 2,000,000. Though population

size is an important variable, population mm was the strongest and most consistent

54

predictor of overall helping in their study. It is important to note, as Korte (1981)
indicates, that urban-nonurban differences in helping occur only related to helping a
stranger. These distinctions are not relevant to the current study, since all surveyed
communities were located within the same city, and block size was relatively uniform. In
addition, most reported instances of helping in these data involved a known recipient,
rather than a stranger.

In addition to the distinction between internal and external factors contributing to
helping behaviors are factors related to the helping behavior itself. McGuire (1994) used
factor analysis to categorize reported helping behaviors. She found that three factors,
Beneﬁts, Frequency, and Costs, accounted for 84% of the variance. Beneﬁts of Helping
accounted for 47% of the total variance, and combined the perceived beneﬁts to the
recipient and to the helper. Frequency of Helping accounted for 29% of the variance, and
Cost of Helping accounted for 9%. She also differentiated between helping among
strangers and among familiars. Helping a stranger is more likely to occur in instances that
require little intimacy, or under conditions of great need. Helping someone who the helper
is familiar with usually takes the form of Substantial Personal helping (e.g., loaning
someone a car, cleaning up a home, sending someone food, etc.) or Emotional helping
(e.g., listening to a ﬁiend’s problem, providing moral support, celebrating a birthday, etc).
Overall, McGuire found that the following four scales were most important: how often the
helping behavior occurs, how much the recipient beneﬁts ﬁ'om receiving the help, how
costly it is for the helper, and how much intimacy it requires between the helper and the

recipient. These scales are relevant to the study of social fabric in several ways. As stated

55

earlier, it is believed that communities with a strong social fabric have residents who are
connected to one another and support one another, and thus feel a sense of responsibility
toward each other. This network could create a social norm of helping that would provide
beneﬁts to the helper by way of social affirmation and approval. Similarly, the costs of not
helping, such as community disapproval, could outweigh the costs of helping, such as time
spent.

Amato (1990) studied helping behavior in everyday life and found that most
everyday helping occurs between friends, family members, and other familiar individuals.
Much of the help provided to familiar others is planned, while help provided to a stranger
is usually unplanned. Amato concluded that the level of helping people exhibit in everyday
life is related to the number and type of social roles that they play; that is, their level of
social participation. The larger a person’s social network, the more frequent are
opportunities to provide help to others. For these reasons, communities where people
know each other and interact with each other are expected to have greater proportions of
“helpers.” Helping in spontaneous situations is predicted modestly by individual
differences and consistently by situational variables. Individual characteristics (both
personality and social network variables) are better predictors of planned helping than of
spontaneous helping.

There are clearly many variables that impact helping. In communities there are
two main facets of helping behavior that are most relevant to the idea of a social fabric,
helping a known recipient and helping an unknown recipient. Helping a known recipient,

such as a friend or neighbor, is an important mechanism for creating and maintaining social

56

networks. Helping an unknown recipient (a stranger) is an indication of a commitment to
the larger community.
Witter!

Blood donation is often used as a convenient example of “helping behavior”
(Piliavin & Callero, 1991). In the current study, blood donation is used as an example of
helping an unknown person, an indication of a person’s commitment to the larger
community. Though there is little published research on the activity of blood donation,
the one book on the subject is a comprehensive look at the blood industry in the United
States (Piliavin & Callero, 1991). Most blood in the United States is now collected on the
“community responsibility” philosophy, which means that donors are recruited through
appeals to a moral sense of responsibility and they are not paid. For this reason, blood
donation is viewed by these authors as an altruistic activity.

In the general population, 9% of men and 4.7% of women claim to have given
blood in the previous year (National Center for Health Statistics [NCHS], 1989). Donors
tend to be in their 305 and have higher than average education and income. A greater
proportion of whites (7.5%) than blacks (3.3%) report donating (NCHS, 1989). Central
cities import blood, while rural areas export it. Piliavin and Callero attribute the difference
between urban and rural rates of donation to sense of community, susceptibility to social
pressure, and the existence of social norms of mutual support. These characteristics in the
current study contribute to the expectation that helping is more likely to occur in

communities with a stronger social fabric.

57

According to Piliavin and Callero ( 1991), no clear patterns emerge from the
research related to the personality characteristics of blood donors. “Altruism” is the
reason most often given by donors as their motivation for donating. The two primary
theories that explain donation are 1) personal norms and an attribution of responsibility to
oneself, and 2) the impact of modeling. This information suggests that blood donation is
more likely to be related to a person’s feelings that she/he ought to donate and to knowing
someone who has donated, rather than to a particular personality trait. Awareness of
community need was found to be a primary motivating factor in several studies cited by
these authors. People are most willing to give blood if they perceive a need exists and the
community support exists. Further, it is expected that people must feel a part of the
community (have a sense of belonging) in order to take on the responsibility of helping.

The perceptions of community norms affect a person’s blood donating activity
(Piliavin & Callero, 1991). These authors found that perceptions of community norms
strongly affected the individuals’ actions and personal norms. To study blood donation,
Piliavin and Callero (1991), and other researchers cited in their work, use “within the past
year” as a cutoff to differentiate donors from non-donors. This same criteria was used in
the present study.

In this study, helping is viewed as an outcome of a community’s social fabric.
Helping a known person was assessed by asking respondents whether or not they had
volunteered their time within the past month to help someone without getting
compensated. Helping an unknown person was assessed by asking respondents whether

or not they had donated blood within the past year. Due to the nature of blood donation,

58

and the external factors that restrict this activity for some groups in the population, this
variable will not be used alone. Instead it will be combined with the other helping
variables. An individual’s helping behavior is viewed as distinct from the concept of social
fabric, which in this study is operationalized as the aggregate perceptions of a
community’s residents regarding the social networks of the group and the overall group
sentiment about the community.
III I . . I l I . I I

In the literature on social components of communities, there is much discussion
that mobilization of citizen participation can have a dramatic effect on addressing local
problems (e. g., Florin & Wandersman, 1990). A shared sense of urgency combined with a
belief that individuals can have an impact contribute to action (Perkins et al., 1990).
Davidson and Cotter (1989) found that a sense of community was related to contacting
local ofﬁcials, voting, working on public problems, and overall political participation.
They also found (1993) that sense of community was related to community development.
Burn (1991) found that communication and personal contact between residents increased
participation in a local recycling program. Levine (1986) described the impact of an
interactive neighborhood crime watch on decreasing the local crime rate. Citizen
participation in this example consisted of neighbors watching out for each other and
working together to monitor the neighborhood. The current study investigates whether
social fabric impacts the degree to which residents are willing to work with neighbors to

improve conditions on the block.

59

Unger and Wandersman (1983) made a distinction between informal interactions
between neighbors to provide support and material goods, and formal associations
between neighbors, to solve social problems in their communities. They found that

communities in which residents participate in informal neighboring activities, such as
socializing, asking to borrow food or a tool, asking for a ride, and so forth, were more
likely to have successful block organizations.

Wandersman and Giamartino (1980) found that sense of community and
neighboring, key components of a strong social fabric, were related to participation in
community organizations. Wandersman (1984) discusses the relationship between citizen
participation and the development of community as a reciprocal one. He also lists the
many positive community outcomes that have been associated with civic participation,
including improving the quality of the physical environment, enhancing services, and
preventing crime.

Participation has been found to increase individual and community decision-
making and control, improve equity of resources, and enhance quality of life. Community
organizing has led to stronger social networks, increased community participation,
enhanced psychological empowerment, and community competence (Wallerstein, 1993).

Leadership

“The recruitment and maintenance of leaders is thought vital to the success of
citizens’ action groups” (Rich, 1980, p. 570). Leadership is an important component of
local action efforts, because it is key individuals, often as volunteers, who organize and

facilitate these activities. Neighbors, according to Rich (1980), may reap beneﬁts from

60

coordinating their efforts to solve problems, but this coordination is not automatic. It
takes the extra attention of a small group of people to get action started and to keep it
functioning. Leadership in neighborhood organizations and activities takes time and
energy. Rich explains that in order for people to be willing to take on a leadership role,
_ the beneﬁts must outweigh the costs. Potential beneﬁts include the achievement of
community goals (such as increased safety due to the implementation of a neighborhood
watch), incidental beneﬁts due to the leadership position (e.g., personal contacts made
through the leadership position that enhance the leader’s professional career), or
enjoyment of the leadership role in and of itself. This istudy hypothesizes that a strong
social fabric will facilitate residents’ interest in taking on a leadership role, because of the
perception of beneﬁts to the individual and/or to the neighborhood.

This study will test whether or not social fabric at the block level inﬂuences
individual behaviors and attitudes, including volunteering to help others and donating
blood, interest in working with neighbors, and interest in taking on a local leadership role.
In addition, it will look at several predictors of block level social fabric in order to identify
areas of potential intervention for community development work.

Predictors of Social Fabric

Because social fabric is hypothesized to be an important component of healthy
communities, it is useful to understand what factors contribute to and strengthen it. The
literature has many examples of demographic variables that correlate with social
characteristics of communities, though there is little agreement across studies; variables

that are signiﬁcant in one study are found to be non-signiﬁcant in others (Hill, 1996).

61

The variables that have had mixed results related to sense of community include
years living in the community, income, age, home ownership, and the presence of children
(Hill, 1996). Key (1965) found no signiﬁcant differences in neighboring due to age or
socioeconomic status. Unger and Wandersman (1982) found the life stage of an individual
was indicative of neighboring activities. Of the block level variables, only socio-economic
status was signiﬁcantly associated with neighboring. Kasarda and Janowitz (1974), in
their study of community attachment, found that length of residence had positive and
signiﬁcant direct effects on all local social bonds except participation in informal social
activities. It also had positive and signiﬁcant effects on community sentiments, including
sense of community. Involvement in the social fabric of communities was found to decline
with advanced life-stage. Riger and Lavrakas (1981) argue that life circumstances,
particularly the life cycle stage, play an important role in determining the level of
attachment to the local community. Age tends to differentiate groups in physical
attachment, and the presence of children tends to differentiate links among neighbors.
Levine’s (1986) case study of a neighborhood crime watch illustrates that perception of
crime can be a catalyst for local action. The current study will look at the following
variables as block level predictors of social fabric: years on the block, income, age of the
respondent, presence of children, and crime rating.

Summary

This literature review was intended to serve three purposes. First, it summarized

the work done on social components of communities and demonstrated how each topic

area discussed themes which are relevant to social fabric. The second section presented

62

relevant literature on helping behavior and local participation, in order to prepare the
reader for looking at these variables as potential outcomes of block level social fabric.
Third, this review identiﬁed the variables that are hypothesized to predict block level
social fabric.

It is hypothesized that social fabric is comprised of the following six factors:
belonging, connection, support, participation, empowerment, and safety. These themes
are represented in other work on social components of communities, but have not yet all
been addressed by any one study. It is also hypothesized that social fabric at the block
level will inﬂuence individual level helping behavior and interest in local participation.
Finally, it is hypothesized that the number of years residents have lived on the block,
residents’ ratings of the degree of crime and the income levels on the block, the
respondents’ ages, and the presence of children will predict the strength of the social fabric
at the block level. By identifying the factors that create social fabric, the conditions under
which it is strengthened, and the impacts it may have on individuals, effective community
programs that utilize this information can be created. Community building can occur in a
planﬁrl way to strengthen other neighborhoods.

Hypotheses
1. Social fabric is comprised of 6 factors, that can conceptually be identiﬁed as Belonging,
Connection, Support, Participation, Empowerment, and Safety (see Figure l).
Exploratory and conﬁrmatory factor analyses will be performed to identify the factor

structure of the 33-item social fabric measure.

63

2. Social fabric at the block level will predict individual level helping behavior and interest
in local participation (see Figure 2). Hierarchical linear regression modeling will be used
to determine the relationship between social fabric and the individual level outcomes.

3. Number of years residents have lived on a block, residents’ ratings of the degree of
crime and the income levels on the block, the respondents’ ages and the presence of
children on the block will predict the strength of the social fabric at the block level (see
Figure 3). Multiple regression analyses will be used to test the predictive value of these

independent variables on social fabric.

64

 
    

Helping behavior (I)

 
   
   

 

/
Social fabric
(B)
\

 
  

  
   

Interest in local
participation (I)

 

B = Block level
I = Individual level

Figure 2 - Outcomes of Social Fabric (Hypothesized)

cm «9
Que <9 \
\
600me® ) Social fabric

@ldren (B) /

Qge (ED B = Block level

Figure 3 - Predictors of Social Fabric (Hypothesized)

 

 

 

 

(B)

 

 

 

 

Chapter 2

METHOD

Setting

This study was conducted in Lansing, Michigan, a medium-sized Midwestern city.

This city is both the capital of Michigan, and therefore houses state government ofﬁces

and ﬁrnctions, and an industrial center, known for manufacturing and related businesses of

the automobile industry. See Table 2 for demographic information about Lansing.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 2
I . “'1' "I; I'lﬁ .
Lansing, Michigan - Demographics"
Total Population 127,321
Total Households 50,635
Proportion of Households Occupied by Owners 54.8%
Median Rent per month $356.00
Racial Demographics: White 73.9%
Black 18.6%
Hispanic (of any race) 7.9%
Asian 1.8%
Native American 1.0%

 

 

 

* 1990 Census of Population and Housing

65

 

66

This study looks at the social fabric of residential blocks, that is, groups of houses
that face each other on residential streets. Blocks were selected by inspecting maps of the
city and by driving through identiﬁed areas.

Research team members selected blocks which contained approximately 15 to 25
housing structures. Blocks needed to be primarily residential, comprised of mostly single
household structures, though some of the housing structures were subdivided into a
number of smaller units. In most instances there were clear geographic boundaries that
identiﬁed the ends of the block, such as a cross street or a dead end. In several situations
we extended our “block” to include a small number of houses comprising the adjacent
block. This inclusion took place when the adjacent block only contained a small number
of houses and when residents on the originally selected block indicated that they felt the
adjacent block to be part of their community. In several other instances the selected
blocks had a cross street that divided one side of the target block and ended at that street.
In these cases we found that the residents viewed that cross street as the demarcation of
their block, so we used the residents’ perceptions to indicate the geographic boundary of
their block.

Blocks were chosen to reﬂect a wide variety of geographic locations, political
wards, and mean housing values (an approximation for socio-economic status). We also
included some blocks that are members of neighborhood associations, some that have a
community police officer assigned to the region, and some that are members of

neighborhood watches. Geographic dispersion was accomplished by mapping blocks onto

67

a city map and including the boundaries of the neighborhood associations, community
policing districts, and political wards.
Exclusions

Blocks that contained apartment buildings, schools, and social or religious
institutions were excluded. Apartment buildings were excluded for several reasons. First,
it is often difficult to access residents due to building security. In addition, apartment
buildings are hypothesized to create a social fabric that may be distinct from the block on
which the building is located. Similarly, residents of these buildings may not participate in
activities or interact with residents on the block who do not live in the apartment building.
Schools, social groups, and religious institutions were excluded because they would be
expected to create a social meeting place that would have added an additional variable to
consider when evaluating the blocks’ social fabric. For the purposes of this study, blocks
with these institutions were not included, in order to avoid the need to partial out these
potential effects. A small number of blocks had a business at the corner, on the cross
street, but not on the block itself.

Appendix A describes the 37 individual blocks included in this study. See Table 3
for summary information about the blocks.

Research Participants

Four hundred forty-ﬁve residents participated in this study. Research participants
were 18 years of age or older. They had to have lived on a selected block for at least one
month, so that they could comment on the social characteristics of the block. Each

occupied household was contacted for an interview, and only one member of each

68

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Total number of blocks 37
Range of total number of households per block 9 - 40
Mean total number of households per block 21
Mean number of vacant units per block 1
Mean total number of possible households per block (total - vacant) 20
Range of interview completion rates 29% - 88%
Mean interview completion rate 61%
Total number of interviews completed 445
Range of approximate mean housing value $22,750 - $136,100
Overall percent of households that owned their property 71.9%
Average household size 2.96
Mean housing value $46,752
Number of dead end blocks 6
Number of blocks with clear cross streets 25
Number of blocks with community police officers 4
Number of blocks with neighborhood organizations 22
Number of blocks with neighborhood watches 10

 

 

69

household was interviewed. Interviewers surveyed the ﬁrst adult to come to the door. If
that person was unwilling to participate, the interviewer surveyed any other adult member
of the household. Any housing structure that was subdivided into more than one unit was
considered to have multiple households, and one respondent was sought from each unit.
Response rates ranged from 29% to 88%, with an overall response rate of 61%. Less than
20% of blocks had smaller than a 50% response rate, with only one block (less than 3%)
having fewer than one third of households responding. Most of the blocks with low
response rates also had high rates of refusals, that is, households did not participate by
choice, not because residents were not contacted. Of the blocks with less than a 50%
response rate, the rates of refusals ranged from 20% to 38%. There is no apparent pattern
to the low response rates. These blocks have a range of housing values, had a large
variety of interviewers, and are located in various regions of the city. They are also varied
in their social fabric scores, with some blocks being above the means on these variables
and others being below the means.
Design

This cross-sectional study utilized a nested research design; that is, individual
interviews of residents were aggregated in order to obtain data at the block level. The
individuals living on the same block are “nested” within that block and are assumed to be
more similar to each other than to individuals on other blocks, due to the eﬁ’ect of the
block. The interviews gathered residents‘ perceptions about the social fabric on their
blocks. The interviews began in May, 1995. The bulk of residents were interviewed

during October and November, 1995, although interviews continued through January,

70

1996. These data were collected by members of the research team (four graduate
students) and twelve trained interviewers (undergraduate students). Residents completed
the interviews voluntarily and without compensation.

Procedure

The interviewers were graduate and undergraduate students at Michigan State
University. The graduate students were research project employees for Urban Affairs
Programs. Ten of the twelve undergraduate students were paid as interviewers. One
student received course credit through the Department of Psychology for her
participation, and one student participated as part of a summer scholarship research
program.

All interviewers were interviewed by a project administrator and provided an
overview of the research project. The interviewers were then trained by a member of the
research team or by an experienced interviewer. Training was comprised of both
classroom and ﬁeld experience components. A three hour classroom training session
included an explanation of the purpose of the study; distribution and discussion of
interview materials; and instruction in interviewing requirements, procedures, and record-
keeping. Also discussed were the topics of safety, standardization, translators, and
transportation. Each trainee observed a minimum of one interview in the ﬁeld, had an
opportunity to discuss any questions, and then completed a minimum of one interview in
the ﬁeld in the presence of an experienced interviewer. The person in training then

received verbal feedback ‘and suggestions from the experienced interviewer. The trainee

71

was accompanied by an experienced interviewer until the trainer felt comfortable that the
new interviewer could complete interviews alone. Due to the straightforward nature of
the interview form, most interviewers were able to go on their own after one or two
observation and feedback sessions.

Although most interviews were conducted by a single interviewer, during 11
interviews two interviewers simultaneously completed separate interview forms in order to
obtain a measure of interrater reliability. As in the rest of the interviews, the questions
were asked by only one interviewer. There were 87 closed-ended questions on the
interview form. The interview form can be found in Appendix B. Out of a total of 957
items across the 1 1 interviews, 18 items were inconsistently marked, for an interrater
agreement of slightly greater than 98%. Seventeen of the 18 items were on two of the
survey forms. Fifteen of the 18 items were part of the social fabric scale (in which
response options ranged ﬁ'om l to 5) and all but one item of the 15 items had a
discrepancy of one number, that is, one coder noted 1 (strongly agree) and the other 2
(agree) or one coder noted 4 (disagree) and the other 5 (strongly disagree).

The interviewers were each assigned their own blocks and either went alone or in
groups to the blocks to complete interviews. The interviewer to whom the block was
assigned was responsible for maintaining records regarding the number, dates, times, and
nature of contacts to each household. Interviewers met weekly with members of the
research team to collect completed interview forms, discuss problems and progress, and

assign new blocks.

72
Intemim

Contact with every household on the selected block was attempted a minimum of
three times, over a two week period, before efforts to obtain in-person interviews were
discontinued. For each household, contacts were attempted at least once in each of the
following three time periods: during the day, in the evening, and on a weekend. Most
households were contacted more than three times. Interviewers went door-to-door,
requesting interviews from one adult member of each household. As part of their
introduction, interviewers explained the voluntary nature of the study (see Appendix C for
a copy of the standard introduction). Interviewers had a block ”map" on which they
indicated which households were contacted, on which days/times, and what the result was,
including if the unit was vacant or if the adults living there declined to participate. If no
resident was home or no one answered the door, the interviewer left a ﬂyer that described
the study (see Appendix D) and provided the research office phone number and a contact
person.

In some cases, residents were given the opportunity to complete the survey form
without being interviewed. A survey form was left at a household under any of the
following three circumstances: (a) if no personal contacts were made with a household
member after multiple attempts, (b) if a resident who had agreed to be interviewed at a
later time was subsequently not contacted, or (c) if a resident requested. A small number
of residents requested that the interviewer return to pick up the completed survey. In the
other cases, postage-paid return envelopes were left along with the survey forms. This

material was left either with a resident or in a visible place, such as inside a screen door.

73

Approximately 25 surveys, or less than 6%, were returned by mail. If a resident declined
to participate, the interviewer attempted to identify either a more convenient time to
return or another adult member of the household who may have been willing to
participate. Once an interview was completed or the residents declined, the household
was no longer contacted. If the residents did not speak English, an attempt was made to
ﬁnd a translator. One research team member translated the interview form into Spanish.
Two interviews were completed in Spanish. Three interviews were initiated and not
completed. In two situations, the interviewer felt that the respondent was not able to
understand the questions and answer in an accurate manner. In one other situation, the
interviewer felt his safety was in jeopardy and chose to terminate the interview early.
Interviewers read the survey instructions and questions to all residents who agreed
to be interviewed. Interviews took place at the door or inside the residents' homes. The
interview took approximately 45 minutes to complete, with individual variation from 35
minutes to 1 V2 hours. Though the interview questions were the same for all respondents,
some residents elaborated more fully on the open-ended questions, or complemented their

interviews with stories or examples.

Chapter 3

RESULTS

Statistical analyses were performed using three software packages. The
conﬁrmatory factor analysis was run using CFABAS. The hierarchical linear models were
conducted using the PROC MIXED procedure in the SAS System. All other analyses
were run using SPSS for Windows.

Hypothesis 1
Social fabric is comprised of six factors that can conceptually be identified as Belonging,
Connection, Support, Participation, Empowerment, and Safety.
ConﬁmamﬁmoLAmlxsis

This hypothesis was tested using conﬁrmatory and exploratory factor analyses.
These analyses were used for data reduction purposes, to create measures of social fabric
for use in subsequent analyses. Conﬁnnatory factor analysis was performed at the block
level by entering the 33 social fabric items and specifying the hypothesized six factor
solution. The ﬁrst run demonstrated that there were many items that loaded higher on
other factors than on their hypothesized one, and many items that loaded highly on more
than one factor. Subsequent runs were then undertaken, in order to explore a more ﬁtting
factor solution. At each run, items were dropped that did not load highly on any factor.

Additionally, items were removed from factors with which they did not load well and

74

75

added to factors with which they loaded more highly. After six runs, a three factor
solution was achieved that included 18 of the original items. The ﬁrst factor (see Table 4,
Appendix E) was comprised of 11 items and represented social ties between residents
(alpha = .95). These items were all from the original groupings of connection, support,
and belonging. The average correlation between items in this cluster was .64. The second
factor (see Table 5, Appendix E) contained 5 items and involved community action and
participation (alpha = .92). These items were all from the hypothesized participation and
empowerment groups. The average correlation between items in this cluster was .70.
Finally, the third 2-item factor (see Table 6, Appendix E) indicated residents’ perceptions
of the safety of the block (alpha = .94). The correlation between these items was .88.
E . . I E I I

Because the conﬁrmatory factor analysis did not yield the expected six factor
solution, exploratory factor analyses were performed in SPSS to test the new three factor
solution. Principal components analyses at the individual level were used to identify
factors with eigenvalues greater than 1 (see Table 7, Appendix E). This procedure yielded
six factors, though the ﬁrst three factors were the only ones that accounted for greater
than 5% of the variance. The ﬁnal factor analysis was a principal components analysis,
with varimax rotation and listwise deletion, that speciﬁed a three factor structure. This
solution showed a satisfactory scree plot. Of the original 33 items, 2 items were dropped
due to a lack of consistent ﬁt with any of the three factors. The two dropped items were
“Children of the same age on the block attend different schools” and “ People on this

block inﬂuence each others’ behavior.” The three factors are named “social ties,”

76

“security,” and “community action” (see Figure 4). The means of the items in each factor
were calculated to form three new variables, which were used in subsequent analyses.
SociaLIios

The ﬁrst factor contains the bulk of the items which were originally identiﬁed as
connection, support, and belonging items. This l4-item factor is comprised of both
affective and behavioral items related to the social connection and support that exists
between residents on the block. The coeﬁicient alpha of this factor is .92. At the block
level, these items create a factor with a coefficient alpha of .94. Table 8 (see Appendix E)
presents detailed information about this factor.

Seminar

The second factor combined items from all six original groupings. The nine items
in this factor relate to residents sense of security and trust on the block. This factor has a
coefficient alpha of .81. At the block level, these items create a factor with a coefﬁcient
alpha of .86. Table 9 (see Appendix E) presents detailed information about this factor.

[I . I .

The third factor is comprised mostly of participation and empowerment items. The
eight items relate to community improvement and ﬁnding solutions to community
problems. This factor has a coefficient alpha of .81. At the block level, these items create
a factor with a coefficient alpha of .88. Table 10 (see Appendix E) presents detailed

information about this factor.

77

Community
Action

 

Social
Fabric

Figure 4 - Social Fabric Components (Results)

78
I I . [If .

Three analysis of variance tests were performed at the individual level, one for
each factor, to examine differences between blocks on each of the social fabric
components. All three ANOVAs were signiﬁcant at the p < .05 level. The Es are as
follows: social ties (E(36, 408) = 2.91, eta squared = .21), security (E(36, 408) = 3.54, eta
squared = .24), and community action (E(36, 408) = 4.46, eta squared = .28). These
results indicate that there are differences between blocks in the degree of social fabric.
There are also differences between blocks in the variances of the social fabric responses.
Levene’s test of homogeneity of variance (found in the SPSS software) indicated that
social ties and security have signiﬁcant differences by block, while community action does
not (social ties: 1.91, p < .05; security: 2.15, p < .05; community ties: 1.15, as).

W

The three social fabric factors are highly intercorrelated at both the individual and
block levels (see Table 11) at p < .05. Social ties and security are most highly correlated,
while security and community action have the lowest correlation.

Table 11

C I. ll' ElS'lEl'E

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Social Ties Security
Individual Level Security .69 ~-
N = 445 Community Action .63 .53
Block Level Security .72 ..-
N = 37 Community Action .66 .52

 

 

79

F. l'l'l' llll'l'

Interrater reliability was collected on 11 surveys. Two raters attended each of
these interviews and completed the survey forms, though only one of them asked the
respondent the interview questions. Out of a possible 957 short answer questions, 18
discrepancies were found, giving a 98% agreement rate. Seventeen of the 18
disagreements were found on two surveys and 13 of them involved ratings that differed by
only one point on the ﬁve-point scale.

As described previously, the three social fabric factors were found to be internally
consistent, with coefficient alphas of .92, .81, and .81. The average item-total correlations
for the social ties, security, and community action factors were .64, .51, and .52,
respectively.

The items that create the social fabric scales were written to satisfy the need for
content validity, that is, they cover the domain of items about this construct, as suggested
by previous research on the topic. The three factors, however, are highly positively
correlated, which indicates that they represent related constructs. The three factors are
signiﬁcantly correlated with other questions ﬁ'om the interview (see Table 12, Appendix
E, for the individual level correlation data). For example, the social ties factor is
signiﬁcantly correlated with the number of social activities that occurred on the block in
the past year, though this variable is also signiﬁcantly correlated with the community
action factor. The number of community improvement activities that have occurred on the
block during the past year is only signiﬁcantly correlated with the community ties factor.

Neither of these variables is signiﬁcantly correlated with security. Interestingly, the

80

number of years a resident indicated he/she would like to stay on the block was
signiﬁcantly correlated only with the person’s score on the security factor. Other
variables, such as the degree to which pe0ple know others on the block or the frequency
with which they talk to neighbors, correlated signiﬁcantly with all three social fabric
factors.
Hypothesis 2

Social fabric at the block level will predict individual level helping behavior and interest
in local participation.

The following variables were used in the analyses to test this hypothesis:
Helping behavior: Helping behavior is a dichotomous variable measured using a
combination of three dichotomous items. Individuals were identiﬁed as “helping” if they
reported participating in at least one of the following three activities: (a) volunteering time
within the past month to -help someone without receiving compensation, (b) volunteering
time within the past month to help a person on their block, or (c) donating blood within
the past year.
Interest in local participation: Interest in local participation was measured as the
summation of two closed-ended survey items, “How interested would you be in working
with your neighbors to improve conditions on this block?” and “How interested would
you be in assuming a leadership role on the block?” (for these two items, 2 = very
interested, I = somewhat interested, 0 = not interested). Interest in local participation has

values ranging from 0 to 4.

81

Social fabric: Social fabric was measured using the three factors identiﬁed using
exploratory factor analysis (described earlier). The three factors are social ties, security,
and community action.

I I . [If .

Analysis of variance tests were performed at the individual level for each of the
dependent variables, to examine differences between blocks on helping and interest in local
participation. Neither analysis yielded signiﬁcant results, indicating that there are no
differences between blocks in the mean level of helping or interest in local participation.
AN OVAs were then performed to test whether there were any block differences in the
two components of the interest in local participation variable. Neither interest in working
with neighbors nor interest in assuming a leadership role had signiﬁcant between block
differences.

H. I . I I . l l I I

Six hierarchical linear models were tested, one for each social fabric component for
each of the two dependent variables. These analyses were done to assess the amount of
variation in helping and interest in local participation that was due to differences between
blocks. Because there were no signiﬁcant differences between blocks in the analysis of
variance tests on these two dependent variables, it was unlikely that differences would
emerge in the HLM analyses.

S'lEl' E I. [H].
Hierarchical linear models were attempted for each social fabric component with

helping as the dependent variable using the GLIMMIX procedure in the SAS System.

82

This procedure was selected to accommodate the dichotomous nature of this dependent
variable. The analyses, however, would not converge to provide covariance parameter
estimates. It is assumed that these data do not provide adequate variance on the
dependent variable to run this procedure. Due to the ﬁnding that there was not a
signiﬁcant difference between blocks on helping, it is unnecessary to pursue analyses that
attempt to account for block level effects.

The hierarchical linear models (hlm) were run using each social fabric component
(social ties, security, and community action) as a predictor of interest in local
participation. These analyses were used to identify if the social fabric of the residential
block had an inﬂuence on the individual residents’ interest in working with neighbors or
taking on a leadership role on the block. With all 37 blocks included, the maximum
likelihood would not converge, perhaps due to linear dependence. For some
undetermined reason, dropping block number 36 from the analyses allowed convergence
to occur. It is unclear what characteristics of block number 36 prohibited the analyses
from running. This block is not an outlier in its mean or variance scores for any of the
social fabric factors, for its scores on either of the dependent variables in these analyses, or
for any other demographic characteristic that could be identiﬁed (such as number of
households, vacancy rate, housing value, response rate, refusal rate, or geographic
location.) For each of the three analyses, block number 36 was dropped, so n = 36 blocks
instead of 37 blocks in these analyses. Without block number 36, n = 432 at the individual

level. No block effect was found for any of the three social fabric components on interest

83

in local participation. However, since this procedure tests both block and individual level
effects, these analyses did indicate individual level relationships between the variables
under study.

mm The social ties variable had a signiﬁcant individual level effect on
interest in local participation (E(l, 35) = 10.11, p < .05), but did not have a signiﬁcant
effect at the block level. Convergence was achieved in four iterations.

mm The security variable at the individual level approached signiﬁcance as a
predictor of interest in local participation (E(1, 350) = 3.60, p = .06). Security did not
have a signiﬁcant block effect on this dependent variable. Convergence for this analysis
was achieved in three iterations.

Communjmm The community action variable had a signiﬁcant individual
level effect on interest in local participation (E(1, 350) = 7.12, p < .05), but did not have a
signiﬁcant block effect. Convergence was achieved in four iterations.

For a correlation matrix of these variables, see Table 13, Appendix B. Social ties
are signiﬁcantly positively correlated with both helping and interest in local participation,
though the correlations are small. A sense of security is signiﬁcantly positively correlated
with helping, but not with interest in local participation. Community action is signiﬁcantly
positively correlated with interest in local participation, but not with helping. When the
participation variable is divided into its two components, all three social fabric subscales
are signiﬁcantly positively correlated with interest in working with neighbors and none are

signiﬁcantly correlated with interest in assuming a leadership role on the block.

84

11"!” llil'lE .II

Using individual level data, helping behavior was signiﬁcantly predicted by
respondents’ sense of security on the block and the block residents’ degree of community
action (see Table 14, Appendix E), but not by the block’s degree of social ties. Social ties
signiﬁcantly predicted helping only when that predictor was entered alone; when the other
two predictors were added, the impact of social ties diminished.

Interest in local participation, in contrast, was predicted only by the block’s level
of social ties, and not by security or community action (see Table 15, Appendix E).
Community action was a signiﬁcant predictor when entered alone, but its effect was
removed when social ties were included (see Figure 5).

Hypothesis 3
Number of years residents have lived on a black, residents’ ratings of the degree of crime
and the income levels of the block, the respondents’ ages, and the presence of children on
the block will predict the strength of the social fabric at the block level.

Analysis of variance tests were performed at the individual level to investigate any
between-block differences in the predictor variables. Correlations and multiple regression
analyses, at both the block and individual levels, were examined to identify relationships
between social fabric and the ﬁve predictors. At the block level, these variables were
aggregated by taking the mean.

Years on the block: Residents were asked how long they have lived on their block.

(continuous variable)

Security (1)

   

 

  
   
 

Helping
behavior (I)

     

Community
Action (I)

 

 
  

 
   
   

  
   

Interest in local
participation (1)

Social Ties

(I)

I = Individual level

Figure 5 - Results of Individual Level Regressions

86

Crime rating: Respondents were asked to rate the amount of criminal activity on their
block compared to other blocks in the neighborhood/city. (choices ranged on a three point
scale from “more on this block” to “less on this block”)
Income rating: Respondents were asked to select a category that best describes the
ﬁnancial condition of people on their block. (choices ranged on a ﬁve point scale from
“well-off” to “poor/low income”)
Age: Respondents were asked to provide their age. (continuous variable)
Presence of children: Respondents indicated the number of people living in the household
by age group. For these analyses, this variable at the individual level is dichotomous and
indicates whether or not the household has children (residents under 18 years of age). At
the block level this variable indicates the proportion of households on the block with
residents under 18 years of age.
Analysisoﬂlaﬁanoe

Five analysis of variance tests were performed at the individual level, one for each
predictor variable. All of these analyses were signiﬁcant at the p < .05 level. The Es are
as follows: years on the block (E(36, 406) = 2.37), income rating (E(36, 404) = 6.66),
crime rating (E(36, 396) = 2.12), age (E(36, 402) = 2.77), and presence of children (E(36,
401) = 2.06). These results indicate that there are signiﬁcant differences between blocks
on these variables.

Correlations
For correlation matrices of these variables, see Tables 16 and 17, Appendix E. At

the individual level, the number of years a respondent had lived on the block was not

87

signiﬁcantly correlated with any of the social fabric components. At the block level,
however, the average number of years residents had lived on the block was signiﬁcantly
positively correlated with both social ties and security. The longer residents live on a
block, the more social ties they report and the greater the sense of security on the block.

The income rating of the block was signiﬁcantly positively correlated with all three
social fabric components at the individual level. At the block level, the income rating was
signiﬁcantly correlated with social ties and security, but not with community action. The
higher the residents rated the income of the block’s residents, the more social ties and the
greater the sense of security they reported.

Age of the respondent, at the individual level, was signiﬁcantly positively
correlated only with security. At the block level, the average age of the respondent
signiﬁcantly positively correlated with both security and social ties. The older the
respondents were on a block, the greater the sense of security and the more social ties they
reported.

At the individual level, the crime rating of the block was signiﬁcantly correlated
with all three social fabric components. That is, blocks that were rated as having less than
average crime rates had higher scores on social ties, security, and community. At the
block level, the average crime ratings across the blocks were signiﬁcantly correlated only
with security. Blocks where residents reported lower crime rates also reported a greater
sense of security.

Interestingly, the presence of children had a negative effect on social fabric.

Households with children had lower scores on security and community action. The sizes

88

of these correlation coeﬁicients, though they were signiﬁcant, were small. These
relationships were similar at the block level, though the correlation coefﬁcients were
larger. As the proportion of households with children increased, the sense of security and
the degree of community action decreased.
llnlll llll'lE .II
Years, crime rating, income rating, age, and presence of children were entered
simultaneously as independent variables into multiple regression analyses, using each of
the social fabric subscales as dependent variables.
We; Crime rating and income rating were the only two variables that signiﬁcantly
predicted the degree of social ties on the block (R square = .08) (see Tables 18 & 19,
Appendix E).
Smithy, Crime rating, income rating, and age signiﬁcantly predicted the degree of
security residents feel about the block (R square = .20) (see Tables 20 & 21, Appendix E).
Comm Income rating was the only signiﬁcant predictor of degree of
community action on the block (R square = .05) (see Tables 22 & 23, Appendix E).
W A sense of security signiﬁcantly predicted the degree of social
ties (R square = .48). Social ties signiﬁcantly predicted community action (R square =
.40) (see Tables 24 & 25, Appendix E).
Elll llll°lE .II
Social jljjes, At the block level, when all ﬁve independent variables were included in the
regression analysis, none of them were signiﬁcant. However, when entered separately, the

average number of years living on the block, the average income rating of households on

89
the block, and the average age of respondents all signiﬁcantly predicted social ties (R
squares = .13, .13, & .16) (see Tables 26 through 29, Appendix E).
W At the block level, when all ﬁve independent variables were entered into the
regression equation, the average income rating and the average crime rating were both
signiﬁcant (R square = .55) (see Tables 30 & 31, Appendix E). When entered separately,
average years on the block, average age of the respondent, and the proportion of
households with children were also signiﬁcant (R squares = .18, .33, & .22) (see Tables 32
through 34, Appendix E).
W When the ﬁve independent variables were entered simultaneously at
the block level, only the proportion of households with children was a signiﬁcant predictor
of community action (3 square = .16) (see Tables 35 & 36, Appendix B) (see Figure 6).
None of the other four independent variables reached signiﬁcance, even when entered into
the regression equation separately.
Wm As was found at the individual level, residents’ sense of
security was a signiﬁcant predictor of the block’s social ties (B square = .51) (see Table
37, Appendix E) and social ties was a signiﬁcant predictor of community action (3 square

= .43) (see Table 38, Appendix E).

90

Income (B)

\

Security (B)
/>

Crime (B)

     

 
    
 

  

Community
Action (B)

Presence of
Children (B)

B = Block level

Figure 6 - Results of Block Level Regressions

Chapter 4

DISCUSSION

This study had the following three main purposes: to identify the factor structure
of social fabric, to clarify the relationship between social fabric and the prosocial and pro-
community behaviors of community members, and to conﬁrm the characteristics that
contribute to a strong social fabric. The ﬁndings from this study help inform us about the
qualities and structure of the social components of communities, and how these qualities
can be enhanced to support community development efforts and strengthen
neighborhoods.

Factor Structure of Social Fabric

Instead of conﬁrming the hypothesized six factor solution as suggested in the
literature, social fabric was found to be comprised of three factors, including social ties,
security, and community action.

5 . I I.

The ﬁrst factor, Social Ties, is inclusive of the three areas originally called
connection, belonging, and support. Social ties is a factor that involves residents’
perceptions of their neighbors and interactions between them. It appears that residents
view social ties as one construct and do not differentiate their social interactions into the

three hypothesized areas. They also do not seem to differentiate between the affective and

91

92

behavioral components of connection with neighbors and receiving support from
neighbors, as these groups of items ﬁt together well into this factor.

The emergence of this factor suggests that previously described concepts, such as
the support component of neighboring (Unger & Wandersman, 1982), the connection
component of community attachment (Kasarda & Janowitz, 1974), and the belonging and
connection components of sense of community (McMillan & Chavis, 1986), are viewed by
this group of residents as part of the same construct. This factor represents the
interwovenness of the social fabric, and the support and comfort afforded by a strong
social fabric. Considering social ties or social interaction as one construct simpliﬁes the
model of the social community.

Seminar

The second factor was labeled Security. “Safety” was one of the hypothesized
subscales. This factor encompasses items that relate to residents’ sense of safety
speciﬁcally, and also includes items that more broadly contribute to a secure environment
or reﬂect this sentiment. This factor includes items related to the block residents’ level of
trust, degree of shared values, and ability to resolve conﬂict and decrease crime. The
results of this study conﬁrm that security, or a sense of safety, is a distinct component of
the social fabric of communities, and is one measure of its strength.

C . I .

The third factor, Community Action, seems to combine the originally hypothesized

components of participation and empowerment. Community action includes participation

in community improvement and social activities, commitment to the block’s future, and

93

ability to create solutions to local problems. Discussions about participation in the
community, both informally through interactions with neighbors and formally through
involvement in local organizations, were common in the literature (e.g., Kasarda &
Janowitz, 1974; Key, 1965; Lackey et al., 1987; Smith, 1975). Empowerment themes
(e.g., Lackey et al., 1987; McMillan & Chavis, 1986) also emerged regularly. The results
of this study indicate that participation in the community and residents’ perceptions of
their ability to resolve local problems and participate in local decision-making are part of
the same construct. Community members participate when they believe their involvement
will make a difference, and by being involved they are more likely to have a voice
regarding community issues.

Since the three factors are signiﬁcantly correlated, it is clear that these concepts
are related. It makes sense that communities with strong social ties would also be
communities in which people felt secure, and where people would feel comfortable
participating in local decision-making. It is important to remember, however, that these
ﬁndings are correlational and based on cross-sectional data. Therefore, they do not
provide information regarding the directionality of the relationships between these three
factors. '

BehainoralandAffemixeltmns

In the literature, affective and behavioral constructs were both included in
descriptions of the important social characteristics of communities. In this study, both
affective and behavioral social fabric items were included together, though they all were

asked in the context of the respondent’s perceptions of the people on the block as a

94

whole. Interestingly, although the three resulting factors represent constructs that seem to
differentiate behavioral ﬁ'om affective (social ties and security seem affective while
community action seems behavioral), the behavioral and affective items were still
combined in these factors. For example, social ties includes feeling connected as well as
taking care of each other’s plants, pets, or kids. Security includes both feeling safe and
resolving conﬂict. Community action includes both participation in community
improvement activities and being committed to the block’s future. The social ties and
security factors have slightly more affective than behavioral items and the community
action factor has slightly more behavioral than affective items.
Comonrinaleexelsofhlfmluement

Preliminary factor analyses were completed at both the block and individual levels,
with similar results. The factor analysis used to create the social fabric factors was
completed at the individual level to maximize the available sample size (see Tables 7
through 10, Appendix E). A factor analysis using the same criteria (three factors
speciﬁed, varimax rotation, 31 items) was then completed at the block level (see Tables 39
through 42, Appendix E). At the individual level, the three factors account for 48.7% of
the variance; at the block level, this three factor solution accounts for 64.9% of the
variance of those data. With some rearranging of items, the three social fabric scales are
maintained at the block level.

Social ties remains the largest factor, with 14 items at the individual level and 15 at
the block level. Three items belonging to social ties at the individual level are not in the

block level factor (people feeling isolated ﬁ'om each other and people talking about

95

community problems moved to the community action factor, and people liking each other
moved to the security factor). Four items from the other factors are added (people can
create solutions to block problems, people feel they belong here, people can resolve
conﬂict on the block, and people can reduce the amount of crime on the block). The most
signiﬁcant change is that several empowerment items are shifted from security to social
ties.

The security factor at the individual level has nine items and at the block level has
eight. As mentioned above, three items are lost from security at the individual level; these
items all become part of the social ties factor at the block level. At the block level,
security adds two items (people on the block like each other - from social ties, and people
can persuade the city to respond to their needs and concerns - ﬁom community action).

At both the individual and block levels, community action has eight items, though
there are two changes. At the block level, the item “people can persuade the city to
respond to their needs and concerns” moves to the security factor, and the item “people
can create solutions to block problems” becomes part of the social ties factor. The
community action factor at the block level has the following two items that it does not
have at the individual level: “people talk about community problems” and “people feel
isolated.” These items are both part of the social ties factor at the individual level.

Although there are changes in the location of some items, the three
conceptualizations of the factors remain intact at the block level. This ﬁnding is important
evidence for the generalizability of these three social fabric factors. It lends support to the

assertion that social ties, a sense of security, and community action are key variables in

96

understanding the social health of communities. The blocks in this study differed
signiﬁcantly on each of these three variables, which suggests that these variables are also
able to distinguish between blocks with varying levels of social health.

It is interesting to consider the meaning of diﬁ’erent levels of social fabric. It is
unclear what level is ideal for promoting community health. Although it has been
implicitly understood that more sense of community and stronger social fabric is better,
there are also drawbacks to the high end of the scale. While a strong social fabric
provides security, involved citizens, and a tight social network, too much “community”
may be stiﬂing, or it may be a result of oppression or a common local crisis (Hunter &
Riger, 1986). In this study, respondents were asked to identify how much sense of
community there was, overall, on their block. The majority of respondents, 65.4%, stated
that the sense of community was “just about right.” Only 1.4% of respondents felt that
there was “too much” sense of conununity, and one third (33.3%) felt that there was “too
little” sense of community. This simple ﬁnding suggests that while most people are
satisﬁed with their community’s social ties, a large proportion of people would like to
have more.

The Social Fabric Metaphor

This exploration of the social components of communities has provided support
for the usefulness of conceptualizing social health as a fabric. The social ties factor, in
particular, incorporates characteristics such as interconnections, support, and belonging
which can easily be compared to a fabric’s interwovenness, warmth, and design. The

social fabric terminology recognizes the importance of a community’s network and the

97

value of investigating both individual and group levels. However, the social fabric
metaphor has some limitations. In this study, the security and community action factors
emerge as important components of social fabric, though they do not as easily ﬁt into the
metaphor. The threads that comprise a fabric do not have autonomy, mobility, the
potential for conﬂict, or the ability to make decisions. The level of activity implied by the
community action factor is not adequately captured by the social fabric metaphor.
Similarly, there is not a simple parallel for the security component of social fabric as
described here. Community action and security can be seen as “weavers” of the fabric;
that is, factors that help determine its quality or strength. The social fabric metaphor also
does not deal completely with potentially large degrees of change over time. Communities
are more dynamic than fabric, with some qualities that make them more analogous to
Duhl’s (1984, 1986) metaphor of an organism, living, growing, and changing. Though
fabrics can change over time, it is most likely that they will become worn and eventually
discarded, rather than undergo maturation or healing. Despite these limitations, the social
fabric metaphor allows us to understand some components of communities more easily.
Social Fabric’s Inﬂuence on Helping Behavior and Interest in Local Participation

This study found relationships between social fabric and both helping and interest
in local participation at the individual level only. No block level inﬂuences were identiﬁed.
These ﬁndings suggest that individuals’ perceptions of the social fabric of their block are
more important than the block on which they live in predicting their likelihood to help
others and their interest in local participation. The aggregated perceptions of all

respondents on a block did not predict individual level behavior or interests. However, at

98

the block level, response and refusal rates were signiﬁcantly correlated with residents’
interest in assuming a leadership role on the block (see Table 43, Appendix E).

Helping was predicted by the individuals’ sense of security on the block and by
their perceptions of the block’s degree of community action. People were more likely to
have helped someone in the community if they felt that the community was safe and if they
perceived the residents of the community to be involved in local activities. Social ties
were only a signiﬁcant predictor when analyzed alone; when security and community
action were added to the equation, the effect of social ties became nonsigniﬁcant.

It is somewhat surprising that social ties were not a stronger predictor of helping,
since it is believed that people are more likely to help others when they know each other
and feel responsible for each other (Amato, 1990; Kohn, 1990). On the other hand, it is
possible that people feel less responsible to help personally if they perceive that their
community has a high degree of social ties, because they may believe that residents in need
will be taken care of by others in the community. In this study, individuals’ sense of
security in their community impacted their helping behavior. This variable has not been
discussed in the literature as a predictor; however, it may play a role in a person’s
assessment of the costs and beneﬁts of helping (McGuire, 1994). The relationship
between helping and community action may be due to the individuals’ level of
participation in the community and their locus of control and perceptions of
empowerment. The helping literature indicates that locus of control is one individual trait

that inﬂuences helping (Kohn, 1990). It is likely that people who perceived their block as

99
having a high degree of community action were themselves more involved in community
activities.

When multiple regression analyses were run using helping as the independent
variable and the social fabric factors as the dependent variables, helping was found to be a
signiﬁcant predictor of social ties and security, but not of community action (see Tables 44
through 46, Appendix E). This ﬁnding provides evidence that a relationship between
helping and social ties does exist, although it is in the opposite direction than was
hypothesized. Helping and security appear to have a bidirectional relationship, and
helping does not appear to predict community action.

Interest in local participation was predicted by the individuals’ perceptions of the
degree of social ties on the block. Respondents were more likely to be interested in
working with neighbors to improve conditions on the block or in assuming a leadership
role if they saw the block as one where the residents interacted and supported each other.
Community action was also a predictor of interest in local participation when analyzed
alone, but its effects became nonsigniﬁcant when social ties were added. Interest in local
participation was created by combining two items -- interest in working with neighbors
and interest in assuming a leadership role. All three of the social fabric components
correlated signiﬁcantly with interest in working with neighbors and none of the
components correlated with interest in assuming a leadership role. It seems that interest in
leadership is reliant on variables other than the community’s inﬂuence; such variables may

include personality characteristics and personal preferences. On the other hand, interest in

100

working with neighbors is related to residents’ perceptions of the social fabric of their
neighborhoods.

Multiple regression analyses indicated that interest in local participation predicted
social ties and community action, but not security. However, interest in working with
neighbors did signiﬁcantly predict security (see Tables 47 through 50, Appendix E) . The
relationship between interest in local participation and social ties appears to be
bidirectional, as does the relationship between interest in local participation and
community action.

It is commonly believed that conﬂicts or crises contribute to increased
participation, as residents work together toward a common goal (e.g., Wandersman,
1984). If this is true, then residents who are comfortable with the degree of social fabric
might be expected to participate less than people who perceive improvements to be
needed. In this study, residents who rated the sense of community as “just about right”
were signiﬁcantly less likely to express interest in assuming a leadership role on the block
than people who rated the sense of community as “too little” (E(2,431) = 3.14, p < .05,
eta squared = .01). Very few respondents in this sample rated their block as having “too
much” sense of community, though these respondents also had a higher mean level of
interest in a leadership role than people who felt the sense of community was “just about
right.” There was not a signiﬁcant relationship between ratings of sense of community
and interest in working with neighbors; this ﬁnding is somewhat surprising given that
interest in working with neighbors had stronger relationships with the social fabric factors

than did interest in assuming a leadership role (E(2, 431) = 1.10, 115).

101

I'm .. [111' IS 'lEl'

It is important to identify whether the dependent variables in this study, helping
and interest in local participation, are distinct from the social fabric variables that were
hypothesized to predict them. For example, a respondent was considered a “helper” if he
or she had helped someone during the past month. This activity could have included any
type of helping outside their immediate household. In many cases respondents reported
providing assistance to someone on the block. The social fabric factor “social ties”
includes several items that describe concrete support given between neighbors.

At the individual level, the helping variable is signiﬁcantly correlated with ﬁve of
the six “support” items, though the non-signiﬁcant correlation was with the item, “The
people on this block help each other out when one of them has a problem” (for the
complete correlation matrix, see Table 51, Appendix E). Also, one of the support items
became a part of the security factor. The signiﬁcant correlations have magnitudes that
range from r = .12 to r = .14. When the helping variable was divided into its component
items, volunteering to help someone had the same correlation results as the helping
composite variable. Volunteering to help a neighbor, however, was signiﬁcantly
correlated with all six items, with magnitudes ranging from r = .16 to r = .24. Donating
blood was signiﬁcant with none of the items. At the block level, none of the helping
components were signiﬁcantly correlated with any of the six support items.

At the individual level, using multiple regression analyses, helping was signiﬁcantly
predicted by security and community action, but not by social ties. This ﬁnding suggests

that there is some distinction between helping and social ties. Conceptually, helping

102

reﬂects the respondent’s personal behavior, and social ties reﬂects the respondent’s
perceptions of both the activities and sentiments of the people living on her or his block.
The correlation between helping and social ties, though signiﬁcant (1 = .11, p < .05), was
small, with helping accounting for a mere 1% of the variance of social ties.

Similar correlation analyses were run for the interest in local participation variable
(see Table 52, Appendix E). Nine items which seemed most related to local involvement
were selected from the social fabric section; these items included residents’ participation in
community improvement activities and the city recycling program, residents’ discussions
about community problems, and residents’ ability to create solutions to local problems. At
the individual level, interest in local participation and both of its components, interest in
working with neighbors and interest in a leadership role on the block, were signiﬁcantly
correlated with people on the block talking about community problems (part of the social
ties factor) and people being able to reduce the amount of crime on the block (part of the
security factor). These correlations were the strongest relationships of the variables
assessed, and the only two items on which interest in leadership was signiﬁcant. These
correlations ranged from r = .18 to r = .24. Interest in local participation and interest in
working with neighbors had identical patterns of signiﬁcance across all nine test variables.
They were also signiﬁcantly correlated with people getting things done together to
improve conditions on the block, people participating in community improvement

activities, and people being committed to the block’s future (all part of the community

103

action factor). Interest in local participation was correlated with social ties and
community action.

Interest in local participation was not signiﬁcantly correlated with people being
able to resolve conﬂict when it arises on the block, people being able to create solutions to
problems on the block, people participating in the recycling program, or people being able
to persuade the city to respond to their needs and concerns. In the multiple regression
analyses, interest in local participation was predicted only by social ties. Community
action, which had the most similarities to interest in local participation, became a
nonsigniﬁcant predictor after social ties was included. This ﬁnding suggests that
respondents differentiated the social fabric items from their personal interest in local
participation, though there are clearly relationships between these variables.

At the block level, several very different ﬁndings emerged. Interest in taking on a
leadership role was signiﬁcantly correlated with the perception that residents can resolve
conﬂict on the block (r = .40, p < .05); this relationship was nonsigniﬁcant at the
individual level. Interest in working with neighbors was signiﬁcantly correlated with the
items, “residents get things done together to improve conditions on the block” (r = .46, p
< .05) and “people participate in community improvement activities” (1 = .53, p < .05).
None of the other individual level relationships were retained at the block level.

LeadsotlAnalxsis

The attraction-selection-attrition (ASA) model suggests that organizations, or

blocks, become homogeneous over time, which results in individuals being more similar to

others in their own group than to members of other groups. Social fabric was found to

104
differ signiﬁcantly across blocks, which suggests that the block is a meaningful level of
measurement for this construct. However, social ties and security had signiﬁcant
differences in variances across blocks, which means that the level of agreement on these
factors was not consistent across blocks. The degree of consensus, therefore, would be an
interesting variable to pursue in ﬁrture research, rather than taking the average view of
residents on a block, as was done in this study. Also, contrary to what would be expected
given the ASA framework, there were no differences in helping or interest in participation
across blocks. It appears that it is more meaningful to look at these variables at the
individual level.
1.. . [IE 'lIC'll

One possible explanation for the lack of block level effects (and small individual
level eﬁ’ects) of social fabric on prosocial behavior is the manner in which prosocial
behavior was measured. Helping, for example, was a dichotomous variable (helper or not)
that combined three items that were also dichotomous. One component, blood donation,
was a small group of respondents, and this variabledid not contribute to the relationships
between helping and social fabric. It would be interesting to measure helping using
observational data or structured situations, though this method is resource intensive. It
would also be possible to specify particular forms of helping that would likely be
inﬂuenced by social fabric and combine these items, rather than leaving helping broad, as
was done in this study.

The interest in local participation variable could also be measured in different

ways. It seems clear ﬁ'om the correlational results that interest in working with neighbors

105

and interest in assuming a leadership role had different patterns of relationships with the
other variables in the study. It may be advisable, therefore, to use these variables
separately in the future. Also, interest in local participation could be measured using
observational data, structured situations, or data collected from local organizations.

Because the prosocial variables in this study appear to be inﬂuenced more by
individual factors than by community ones, it may be more appropriate to investigate other
variables that are more likely to be inﬂuenced by social fabric. Such variables might
include outcomes such as crime rates, physical health measures, community appearance
measures, voting rates, or rates of participation in community activities. Ifthese outcomes
are inﬂuenced by social fabric, then efforts to increase the strength of the social fabric
would be warranted. Block parties, pot luck dinners, neighborhood crime watches,
community resource exchanges, and local food rescue programs are examples of projects
that are likely to increase interactions between neighbors, augment feelings of safety, and
facilitate resident participation in local decision-making.

Demographic Predictors of Social Fabric

The ﬁve variables used as predictors of social fabric in this study (years on the
block, crime rating, income rating, age of the respondent, and presence of children)
provide useﬁrl information for community developers and city planners about policy level
inﬂuences on the quality of community life. Demographic characteristics, though diﬁicult
to change, can be inﬂuenced by legislative decisions, such as tax incentives, police funding,
and so forth. It is important to understand the role of these factors in order to focus local

energy in ways which support useful policy development.

106
Sociallios

At the individual level, ratings of the block’s degree of social ties was predicted by
the individual’s rating of the block’s degree of crime and income level. At the block level,
the crime rating was no longer signiﬁcant. The average income rating was a signiﬁcant
predictor of social ties, as were the average number of years residents had lived on the
block and the average age of respondents on the block. The perception of crime only
appears to impact perceptions of social interactions on the block at the level of the
individual. However, the age of the respondent and the number of years spent living on
the block were only relevant as block level measures. The degree of social ties that are
developed has more to do with the average length of stay of all residents than the length of
stay of any individual resident.

The relationship between the length of stay on the block and the degree of social
ties could indirectly provide support for the ASA model. Blocks on which residents have
lived longer may be communities in which the ASA process has occurred and where
residents have become more similar to each other. When residents are more similar to
each other, they may be more likely to develop and maintain social ties with one another.

These ﬁndings provide support for the implementation of policies that encourage
resident investment in and commitment to local communities. Policies that already exist
include tax incentives for home ownership and tax credits for the purchase of local and
state bonds. Community developers can provide residents with inducements to remain in
particular areas by creating pleasant physical environments that include places for residents

to meet informally, such as comer parks, roadside benches, and community centers. The

107

inﬂuence of an individual’s perceptions of crime and income on his or her perceptions of
the social fabric indicates areas in which local efforts can make a difference. For example,
a local campaign to address residents’ fear of crime could increase residents’ ratings of the
strength of the community’s social fabric without altering the actual crime rate. This
strategy would be particularly useful in areas where crime rates are low, but fear of crime
is still high.

Security

All ﬁve of the demographic variables were signiﬁcantly correlated with security at
the block level; however, only the average ratings of the block’s level of crime and income
remained signiﬁcant in the regression equation. Crime and income ratings are signiﬁcant
predictors of security ratings at the individual level as well. In addition, age of the
respondent is also a signiﬁcant predictor at the individual level. Crime and income ratings
would be expected to predict an individual’s perceptions of security on the block. It also
appears that the older the respondent, the more likely he or she was to give a higher
security rating to the block.

Many communities are addressing the issue of resident perceptions of security by
increasing funding for police patrols, restructuring police departments to incorporate a
greater emphasis on community policing, and developing neighborhood crime watch
groups. These strategies address safety at multiple levels. Planners can also increase
perceptions of and actual safety by adding street lighting to unlit areas, adding emergency
call boxes to areas with heavy pedestrian trafﬁc, and extending the hours of public

transportation later into the evening.

108
Commum'trLAstion

The rating of the block’s income level was the only individual level predictor of
community action. Individuals who rated their block as being comprised of higher income
residents also rated the residents as participating more in community activities and being
better able to create solutions to address local issues. At the block level, the proportion of
households with children predicted the level of community action of the block. This
relationship was a negative one; the greater the proportion of households with children,
the lower the rating of community action.

Because income is a very difficult variable to change, local efforts addressed at
changing perceptions may be more ﬁuitﬁrl methods for enhancing this component of social
fabric. Social change has occurred in very poor communities through the efforts of small
numbers of active and committed residents. Although policy work should be pursued to
ensure that all community members have an income that provides them with a satisfactory
quality of life, strategies can be undertaken to demonstrate the potential for community
action in communities of all income levels. Voter registration drives, recruitment of
residents to local boards and commissions, and selecting community members to advise
city planners and legislators are methods of involving citizens in decision-making and
illustrating that involvement is an important facet of creating solutions to local problems.

The relationship of children to community action is an interesting one. This ﬁnding
may indicate that households with children are busy with child care and school
involvements, and are less available for other community activities. Further investigation

of this ﬁnding is warranted in order to determine if communities with greater proportions

109

of households with children truly have lower rates of community action, or if residents in
these communities have different expectations or understandings of what community
action is. Planners need to be aware of which areas of the city have large proportions of
households with children, in order to address concerns particular to families; such
concerns may include access to safe recreation areas, transportation to local schools, and
the availability of child care settings. Local participation is important in these communities
because decisions that inﬂuence such issues as educational curriculum, recreational
opportunities, and ﬁlnding for schools and parks are often made at the local level.

Across all three social fabric components, the one consistent predictor, in most
cases at both the individual and block levels, was the income rating of the residents on the
block. Residents’ perceptions of the income level of the block affected their perceptions
of the social fabric of the block. The three social fabric components were run in a
correlation analysis with 1990 Census data (see Table 53, Appendix E). The Census data
have several variables that can be used as proxies for income, including housing values,
rental costs, percent of housing units that are owned, and percent of housing units that are
occupied. At the block level, the only correlations that were signiﬁcant were between the
social fabric component security and two Census variables, housing value (I = .48, p <
.05) and percent owned (r = .45, p < .05). It seems reasonable that people who live in
areas where the housing values are higher and in which a greater proportion of residents
are homeowners would feel more secure on their blocks. This ﬁnding provides support,
using an external data source, that income is an important factor in determining the social

fabric of a community.

1 10
E I . I . E I I] 2

The ratings of the sense of security on the block signiﬁcantly predicted the degree
of social ties, which, in turn, predicted the degree of community action. These
relationships were evident at both the individual and block levels. The high
intercorrelations between these three variables could be due, at least in part, to response
bias, since the items from which the variables were created were measured in the same
section and on the same response scale. However, since the items in this section formed
three distinct factors, there is likely some relationship between these variables that is
attributable to conceptual or theoretical bases. It is not surprising that blocks where
residents feel more secure would be blocks where residents also feel comfortable
interacting. Further, blocks where residents interact more ﬁ'equently could be expected to
have a greater degree of participation in local affairs, and to have residents who feel more
conﬁdent in their ability to contribute their voices regarding local decision-making. It is
important to keep in mind, however, that these are correlational and cross-sectional data,
and that the direction of causation between these variables has not been established.

Summary

This study makes several contributions to our existing knowledge about social
fabric. First, it provides support for three main components of the social community that
are meaningful and distinct. A network of strong social ties, a sense of security, and
active engagement in the community, or community action, comprise a strong social fabric
and make “communities of place” healthy. These components contribute to a satisfactory

quality of life for community members. Second, this study found no evidence of a block

111

impact on individuals’ prosocial behavior. It appears that the individual level of analysis is
an appropriate way to understand this variable. Social fabric, however, did impact
prosocial behavior. An individual’s perceptions of the social fabric of the block was a
predictor of her or his helping behavior and interest in local participation. The social
fabric components differentially related to these dependent variables, with security and
community action predicting helping, and social ties predicting interest in local
participation.

Finally, this study demonstrated that all ﬁve of the predictor variables (years on the
block, crime rating, income rating, age, and presence of children) had relationships with at
least one of the social fabric components. These relationships changed somewhat between
the block and individual levels, as well as when variables were tested separately versus
together. At the block level, the social ties factor was predicted by years on the block,
income rating, and age, only when the independent variables were entered into the
regression analysis separately. Security was predicted by both income rating and crime
rating; although when entered separately, all ﬁve predictors were signiﬁcant. Community
action was predicted only by the presence of children.

Community development efforts which focus on the three social fabric components
can strengthen communities by promoting resident interaction, by increasing the sense of
security, and by facilitating participation in local decision-making. In addition, policy
decisions and planning projects can have an impact on demographic variables that also

inﬂuence the strength of a community’s social fabric.

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

8.8 888.3% ..\1 _ _ £8 0 $8 0 o m—
ooewemm 882.53 .x; _ N e\em _ ..\..8 2 ON N—
ew Nona 8.8%on e\eoN N ..\..2 m $8 2 ov _ _
8. 3m» 8.82.3 e\eON m e\eN m e\eom N _ ON 0.
cm .83 8.8 mdva e\ev _ 32 m 8:. ON 3 a
8.9mm 8.8m.m mm $0 o ..\8 o e8: 2 N w
8.8Nm 8.85de e\e~. _ ..\.N. N $3 2 2 N
8.33 8.8ng e\eov 0 £8 o Ream w 2 e
8.23 8.8863 e\eN _ ..\8 o e\e:. o. E m
8.8% 883.8% e\eo _ nx8 o .3; m. 2 v
8.83 8.03..me e\eo _ e\eo o $8 3 e. m
8.wNNw 8.03.03 e\ewm w AYam _ $3 3 NN N
8 .83 888.?» e\eVN m e\ee_ v e}? N _ m N _

E3— 028, 83— 8mm 23— «20:88:

:32 maize: .3on 2833. zocaou> 28.5 «ween—mom 260 .30... a 593m

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

cote—585 goo—m

< K—GZHha—ee

112

113

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

8.58» 8.895% $0 0 £8 o .35 o. m. 8
8.83“» 8.8v.vmm e\em N v 80 o 88 o c. N
8 .8 mm 8.8 . 6mm e\e. . N e\eo o ..\..N.. m. m. N
8.83 888.8» e\e.N m Ax8 o e\e8 N. .N ..N
8.83 8.8m..5 e\ev. v e\eN N $8 8. on N
8.8wa 888de e\ev. m X... o $8 m . NN N
8.83 868.8» $3 8 e\eN. N $3. 0 N. ..N
8.3.; 8.88..me e\ev. m e\eo o e\e$ v. .N .N
8 . 3% 8.80.9” e\em N 80 o e\eme m. ..N NN
8 «NS 8.8.38 80 o e\em . e\e... m. NN .N
8Nwa 8.8».va e\eNN N e\eo N .38 .N em 8
8.83 8.98.8» $8 a e\ev . e\e..m o. .N a.
8 .m. 3 8.819% 85 e e\eo 8 $8 . . NN m.
8N . mm 8.8N.NNa e\eo 0 $2 m e82. e. N N.
8. . «Na 8.838” $8 a e\ev . e\eNv o. N e.
8.83 8.85.3 e\eeN m 80 o e\e8 . . a. m.
8 .oNNm 8.8 . .Nmm e\eNN v £8 9 85 N. w. v.

E3. 33> 83. 85. 23. 3.2.8.5:

:32 8.25.. .833. «.383. >o=3a> .525 822.8... 25G .56... m. .025

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

114

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

oomwvm 098.62% e\eo o e\eo o £85 N. o. hm
oodem 8.8M.Nmm e\e... v e\ew N .88 m. N cm
0083 oodoﬁvvm e\em . e\em . e\e8 o. .N mm
00.33 8.8 . 6mm e\eoN v e\ew. m e\eaN v h. 3H
.8 Nova 8 28.9% $0 0 $0 0 {one m N. mm
8.0..“ oodﬂxmvn e\emv o. e\ev . e\emm N. .N Nm
8.00m“ coconﬁvw 80m m X... o e\eom m NN . m

E3. o=.n> 83. 23. 23. «22.88..

503. 8.36.. .333. «.833. .3285» ana> 8:2.«3. gen. .80... a. .025

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

APPENDIX B

APPENDIX B

Interview Form

Date:
Interviewer:

Household:

S [C 'I Q I' .

PART I .' Block Questions
In this section, you will be asked questions about your block (describe geographic
boundaries). -

How long have you lived on this block? [years & months]
I will be giving you a list of statements. Let me Imow how well each one describes the
people on this block, using the following categories:

(1) Strongly agree or deﬁnitely true

(2) Agree or true

(3) Neutral, not sure, or don 't [mow

(4) Disagree or not true

(5) Strongly disagree or deﬁnitely not true

People on this block know each other. [C]

People on this block participate in social activities (e. g., pot lucks, group garage
sales, etc.) [P]

__ People on this block socialize with each other. [C]

__ It is fairly safe to walk on this block at night. [Sa]

__ On this block people talk to each other about community problems. [C]
__ People on this block take care of each others' plants, pets, kids. [8]
__ People on this block feel connected to each other. [C]

People on this block feel comfortable borrowing and lending things from each
other. [8]

115

116

People who live on this block think of themselves as a community. [B]

The people on this block help each other out when one of them has a problem.

[5]
_ Children of the same age on this block attend different schools. [-P]
__ People on this block watch out for each other. [S]

Residents on this block can reduce the amount of crime on the block. [E]
_ People on this block trust each other. [C]

People on this block comfort each other in times of need. [S]

Residents on this block attend the same church(es) or place(s) of worship [P]
__ People on this block feel like a family. [B]

Residents are able to resolve conflict when it arises on this block. [E]
__ People on this block would give rides to each other if needed. [S]

A feeling of community spirit exists among the residents on this block. [B]
_ People on this block like each other. [C]

When faced with a problem on this block, residents can create a solution. [B]
__ People on this block feel isolated from each other.[-C]

Pe0ple on this block share the same values. [B]

People on this block influence each others' behavior. [C]

People on this block get things done together to improve the block. [E]
__ Residents are committed to the block's future. [B]

People on this block participate in community improvement activities (e.g. ,
community clean-ups, ﬂower plantings, etc.). [P]

People on this block have a voice regarding important community issues. [E]

117

People on this block feel that it is a safe place to live. [Sa]
People on this block participate in the curbside recycling program. [P]

People on this block can persuade the city to respond to their needs and
concerns. [E]

' __ People on this block feel they belong here. [B]
>Overall, what is your feeling about the sense of community on this block?
_ Too much >What should be changed?
_ Just about right
Too little >How could it be increased?

>What is it that you feel contributes most to your sense of community on your block?

>What is the best thing about living on this block?

>What is the major problem facing this block?

Y N DK Do you know anything about the history of this block?
>If yes, brieﬂy describe: (How far back have you heard about? Have
you heard about people? Buildings? Events?

Please answer this set of questions with Yes, No, or Don ’t Know

Y N DK - Is this block part of a neighborhood organization?

Y N DK Is this block part of a neighborhood watch group?

Y N DK Is there a neighborhood or community newsletter?

Y N DK Is there a clear leader on your block whom you can go to with questions,
concerns, or suggestions?

Y N DK Do you have a community police officer assigned to your block?

YNDK

YNDK

(’9‘)

(ii)

YNDK

118

Do people from this block get together to hold meetings?
>If so, where?

 

Do people from this block get together to socialize?
>lf so, where?

 

In the last year, how many social activities have occurred on this block
[not including private events]? (e. g., pot lucks, group garage sales, etc.)

In the last year, how many community improvement activities have
occurred on this block? (e. g. , community clean-ups, ﬂower plantings,
etc.)?

Are there other activities on this block?
>If yes, describe the types of activities:

Which of the following categories best describes the financial condition of the
people on this block?

a. well-off

b. middle income, on the higher side
b/c. middle income

c. middle income, on the lower side
d. poor/low income

>What is your feeling about the amount of criminal activity on this block?
There is more criminal activity on this block than on other blocks in this
neighborhood/city
There is about the same amount of criminal activity on this block as on other

blocks

This block has less criminal activity than other blocks in the neighborhood/city

>I-Iow interested would you be in assuming a leadership role on the block?
Very interested
Somewhat interested
Not interested

'I-low interested would you be in working with your neighbors to improve conditions

on this block?

Very interested
Somewhat interested
Not interested

119

PART [1: Individual Questions
In this section, you will be asked some questions about you or your household.

Do you:
(1) own your home

(a) Why did you buy on this block?

(b) How is your home financed?

mortgage land contract cash other (how?)

(2) rent your home ,

(a) Would you buy a house on this block? Y N DK

(b) Why/why not?

Y N DK Does anyone in your household have a car?
Y N DK Does your household have a telephone?

How many people in your household are
Under 5 years of age?

5-12?

13-17?

18-64, including yourself?

65 or older, including yourself?

What is your age?
What is your gender?

'What is the race/ethnicity of the respondent? (If uncertain, ask)
White Black Hispanic
Asian Native American Other
Y N DK Are any other racial/ethnic groups represented in your household? (check
all that apply)
White Black Hispanic
Asian Native American Other
>What is the highest level of education (how far in school) that the adults in your
household have reached? [check for each adult]
Junior high/middle school
Some high school
Graduated from high school/earned GED
1-2 years of college or other training
3-4 years of college

 

120

Finished 4-year college (Bachelor's degree)
Some post-college education
Finished graduate/professional degree (MA, PhD, MD, DDS, etc.)

>What religious affiliation do you have, if any?

 

Y N DK Do you or any of the adults in your household regularly attend a church
or other place of worship in the neighborhood? (If yes, where?)

Y N DK Do you or any of the adults in your household stay at home or work at
home during the day?

>How much do you like living on this block?
Love living here
Like living here
Do not mind living here
Do not like living here
Hate living here
'Why?

 

 

 

Estimate the number of years you plan to stay on this block.

Estimate the number of years you would like to stay on this block.
> Where do you get information about your community? Please rate the following
sources of information based on how much they tell you about your community:

NONE A LITTLE A LOT

Lansing State Journal (newspaper)
Local television news
Community/neighborhood newsletter
Neighbors (word-of-mouth)
Neighborhood leader
> Please rate the following statements from 1-5 based on the following scale:

(1) All (100%)

(2) Most (75%)
(3) Some (50%)

121

(4) Few (25%)
(5) None (0%)

How many families/households on this block do you know by sight?

How many families/households on this block do you know by name?

How many families/households on this block do you socialize with? _

How many families/households on this block do you consider friends?

'How often do you talk to your neighbors?

-<

<

-<

<

Y

Y

N

N

very often
fairly often
sometimes
hardly ever
never
DK Is there anyone on this block that you particularly like?
If yes, why?
DK Is there anyone on this block that you particularly dislike?
If yes, why?
DK Within the past month, have you volunteered your time to help someone
without getting compensated (paid, helped out yourself)?
If yes, what did you do?
DK Within the past month, have you volunteered your time to help someone
on your block without getting compensated?
If yes, what did you do?
DK Have you donated blood within the past year?
DK Do you have a library card for a local library?
DK Have you used your local library within the past year?

Is there anything else about this block that we should know?

Thank you very much for your time!

APPENDIX C

APPENDIX C

Introduction

Sense of Community Project Introduction

Hi. My name is from Michigan State University. We’re working on a
project to improve conditions in Lansing neighborhoods. This block has been selected so
we will be interviewing someone from every household on the block to get your
perspectives about your block. Would you mind taking a few minutes to be interviewed?
Your participation is voluntary, but it would help us to hear from as many people as
possible to get the most accurate picture that we can. Eventually we will be working with
some of the blocks on community projects.

Explain the boundaries of the block (from to )

Make sure the person is 18 or older (ask if unsure).
If the person is hesitant, ﬁnd out if a diﬂ‘erent time would be better.

If the person wants to know how long it takes, make sure to let them know that it
depends on how much they have to say (but at least 20 minutes).

If the person does not speak English, try to use someone else in the household as a
translator, or try to ascertain what language he/she does speak, so we can try to
ﬁnd someone.

Refer to John Schweitzer if the person has concerns about the survey (3 53-9144)

122

APPENDIX D

APPENDR D

 

:6

.5... ,

. _._ 3x

.vimﬁmm 5E3§ 85m. 5&5 es.

.m .BN.B§<UW SEN. .25 3 out Eek enema £23336 5:. LE... :SN \.
85.3:ka cmﬁcﬁx 6m. NESSUEAEa b... {N
tau tote: ax 3&5 .Sex. deem goat .59.. e. M528.» .2. $3 .23 {he}: :.\

.wtcEteiEwct 3.54:3.
. 5...... 5:332.

z,

FlYer

.3835 3.5 0. new: ea. $3 $3.23: .59. «.53 2.93.25:

28 bEx a: QB: Si .5: 3600.5 EUECE. Em C. émSctbi a. .< 53 £5 :3
preocueszgct M2323 FesghtV. a. tent: :
.. . .

wwxoﬁcnzoa 3w Mtkam Em ex:
:0 SEEP: m. bxemsxtb 33% Engﬁox: .a SEEREK EE$< 23th .735 ..EL

 

123

APPENDIX E

APPENDIX E

Data Tables

Confirmatory Factor Analysis

Table 4

5.11. «E .. 12

People on this block know each other.

People on this block feel connected to each other.

People on this block take care of each other’s plants, pets, kids.

PeOple on this block feel comfortable borrowing and lending things from each
other.

#9439?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5. The people on this block help each other out when one of them has a problem.
6. Pe0ple on this block watch out for each other.
7. People on this block comfort each other in times of need.
8. Pe0ple on this block would give rides to each other if needed.
9. People who live on this block think of themselves as a community.
10. People on this block feel like a family.
11. A feeling of community spirit exists among the residents on this block.
Item Communality Factor loadings Factor loadings Factor loadings
number Social Ties Comm. Act. Safety
1 .53 .73 .28 .27
2 .83 .91 .53 .47
3 .47 .68 .29 .31
4 .54 .73 .34 .50
5 .67 .82 .43 .56
6 .79 .89 .48 .57
7 .68 .82 .40 .45
8 .57 .75 .50 .51
9 .76 .87 .57 .55
10 .52 .72 .13 .50

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

124

125

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Item Communality Factor loadings Factor loadings Factor loadings
number Social Ties Comm. Act. Safety
11 .77 .88 .65 .56
Table 5
C . E . __ E . . E
1. People on this block participate in social activities.
2. On this block people talk to each other about community problems.
3. People on this block participate in community improvement activities.
4. People on this block get things done together to improve the block.
5. People on this block have a voice regarding important community issues.
Item Communality Factor loadings Factor loadings Factor loadings
number Social Ties Comm. Act. Safety
1 ..57 .49 .75 .17
2 .64 .50 .80 .01
3 .65 .21 .80 -.01
4 .86 .48 .93 .13
5 .82 .49 .91 .22
Table 6
1. It is fairly safe to walk on this block at night.
2. People on this block feel that it is a safe place to live.
Item number Communality Factor Factor Factor
loadings loadings loadings
Social Ties Comm. Act. Safety
1 .88 .50 .07 .94
2 .88 .62 .16 .94

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Principal Components Analysis -- Individual Level

126

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 7
W
Factor Eigenvalue Pct. of Variance Cum. Pet.

1 - Social Ties 11.20 36.1 36.1
2 - Security 1.98 6.4 42.5
3 - Community Action 1.92 6.2 48.7
4 (not included) 1.16 3.7 52.4
5 (not included) 1.05 3.4 55.8
6 (not included) 1.04 3.3 59.2

 

 

 

 

 

 

127

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 8

S . l I. -- I . . I:

1. People on this block feel connected to each other.

2. People on this block know each other.

3. People on this block take care of each other’s plants, pets, kids.

4. People on this block feel comfortable borrowing and lending things from each
other.

5. The people on this block help each other out when one of them has a problem.

6. People on this block socialize with each other.

7. People on this block comfort each other in times of need.

8. People on this block feel like a family.

9. People who live on this block think of themselves as a community.

10. People on this block watch out for each other.

1 l. A feeling of community spirit exists among the residents on this block.

12. People on this block feel isolated from each other (reverse coded).

13. On this block people talk to each other about community problems.

14. People on this block like each other.

Item number Communality Factor loadings Factor loadings Factor loadings
Social Ties Security Community
Action

1 .67 .72 .29 .26
2 .51 .71 .05 .04
3 .52 .71 .14 .01
4 .55 .68 .30 .08
5 .56 .66 .32 .14
6 .48 .65 -.O4 .22
7 .56 .61 .38 .22
8 .48 .59 .30 .20
9 .57 .57 .38 .31
IO .55 .55 .45 .21
11 .65 .55 .48 .35
12 .40 .49 .34 .22

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

128

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Item number Communality Factor loadings Factor loadings Factor loadings
Social Ties Security Community
Action
13 .40 .47 .06 .43
14 .44 .45 .40 .28
Table 9

'v

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1. People on this block feel that it is a safe place to live.

2. People on this block feel they belong here.

3. People on this block trust each other.

4. It is fairly safe to walk on this block at night.

5. People on this block share the same values.

6. People on this block would give rides to each other if needed.

7. People on this block participate in the curbside recycling program.

8. Residents are able to resolve conﬂict when it arises on the block.

9. Residents on this block can reduce the amount of crime on the block.

Item number Communality Factor loadings Factor loadings Factor loadings
Social Ties Security Community
Action

1 .70 .09 .83 .02
2 .50 .14 .67 .19
3 .59 .46 .61 .09
4 .42 .21 .59 -. l6
5 .37 .26 .51 .19
6 .47 .46 .48 .18
7 .24 .13 .46 .09
8 .33 .35 .43 .16
9 .18 .11 .34 .22

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 10

129

C '!'--I:"12

1. People on this block participate in community improvement activities (e. g.,

community clean-ups, ﬂower plantings, etc.).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2. People on this block get things done together to improve the block.
3. People on this block have a voice regarding important community issues.
4. Residents are committed to the block’s ﬁxture.
5. People on this block participate in social activities (e.g., pot lucks, group garage
sales, etc.).
6. People on this block can persuade the city to respond to their needs and concerns.
7. When faced with a problem on this block, residents can create a solution.
8. Residents on this block attend the same church(es) or place(s) of worship.
Item number Communality Factor loadings Factor loadings Factor loadings
Social Ties Security Community
Action
1 .62 .12 .10 .77
2 .65 .31 .24 .70
3 .56 .08 .31 .68
4 .59 .23 .47 .57
5 .49 .42 -.O3 .56
6 .39 -.11 .37 .48
7 .44 .32 .40 .43
8 .21 .15 -.17 .40

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

130
Table 12

0". ”(1.... o. .u -. 0 «10.10‘ a‘ ‘91

ST: Social Ties Factor

SEC: Security Factor

C.A.: Community Action Factor

SocA: Number of Social Activities on Block in Past Year

ComI: Number of Community Improvement Activities on Block in Past Year
Like: Number of Years Resident Would Like to Stay on the Block

Sight: Proportion of Households on Block Residents Know by Sight
Name: Proportion of Households on Block Residents Know by Name
Soclz: Proportion of Households on Block Residents Socialize With
Friend: Proportion of Households on Block Residents Consider Friends

Talk: Frequency of Talking to Neighbors

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

S.T. SEC CA. SocA ComI Like Sight Name Soclz Friend
S.T. 1.00
SEC .70“ 1.00
CA. 63* .53“ 1.00
SocA . 17* .07 .27* 1.00
ComI .00 -.02 .16* .25* 1.00
Like .09 .14* .03 .03 .10 1.00
Sight .34“ .27* .11* .12“ .01 .06 1.00
Name .37“ 26* .14* .10* .03 .09 .73“ 1.00
Soclz 34* .22* .13* .14* .03 .03 .48“ 50* 1.00
Friend 37* 25* .11* .05 .03 .17* .47* .58* 53* 1.00
Talk 41* .27“ .19* .13“ .05 -.05 39* .37* .49“ 33*

 

*p<.05

 

131

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Tﬂk13
o.-.uu..,o 0.. to. .qo ._gc'oo._:'..‘o ._.._0
ST: Social Ties Factor
SEC: Security Factor
C.A.: Community Action Factor
Help: Helping
IntPart: Interest in Local Participation
IntWork: Interest in Working with Neighbors (part of IntPart)
IntLead: Interest in Assuming a Leadership Role (part of IntPart)
S.T. SEC C.A. Helping IntPart IntWork IntLead

vST. 100

SEC .69* 1.00

CA. .63“ .53“ 1.00

Helping .11* .15“ -.02 1.00

IntPart .15" .09 .l3* .19* 1.00

IntWork .16* .ll* .14“ .22“ .86“ 1.00

IntLead .09 .03 .07 .09 .83“ .43“ 1.00

 

*psOS

 

132
Table14
u o‘i'u‘ Oléh ' o o. .u '1'.‘ narrow

Dependent Variable: Helping
Independent Variables: Social Ties, Security, Community Action

Multiple R .20

R square .04

Adjusted R square .03

Standard Error .45

Analysis of Variance
DF Sum of Squares Mean Square

3 2.70 .90

315 63.19 .20

F = 4.49 Signif. F = .004

Variables in the Equation:

Variable B SE B Beta T Sign. T
Social Ties .06 .06 .10 1.14 .26
Security .14 .06 . 18 2.22 .03
Comm. Act. -.13 .05 -.18 -2.51 .01

(Constant) .37 .17 2.14 .03

133

Table 15

u o‘l'u' 01.61« .1. 0 2. an 4.0: war 1“ 'o 0.-

Dependent Variable: Interest in Local Participation
Independent Variables: Social Ties, Security, Community Action

Multiple R . 16
R square .03
Adjusted R square .02
Standard Error 1.09

Analysis of Variance
DF Sum of Squares Mean Square
3 13.56 4.52
432 517.17 1.20
F=3.77 SignifF=.011

Variables in the Equation:

Variable B SE B Beta T Sign. T
Social Ties .23 .12 .14 1.94 .05
Security -.09 .13 -.05 - .69 .49
Comm. Act. .11 .11 .06 1.00 .32

(Constant) .74 .36 2.04 .04

B4

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Tdklo
0".ogu.., o. .0. .10 .‘noq.oq "cqo - .010 .
um
S.T.: Social Ties Factor
SEC: Security Factor
C.A.: Community Action Factor
Years: Years on the Block
Income: Income Rating of the Block
Crime: Crime Rating of the Block
Age: Age of the Respondent
Children: Presence of Children in the Household
S.T. SEC C .A. Years Income Crime Age Children
ST 100
SEC .69" 1.00
CA. .63* .53“ 1.00
Years .02 .08 -.00 1.00
Income 26* .39“ .22“ .09 1.00
Crime -.18* -.25* -.O9* -.04 -.19* 1.00
Age .09 .18“ .06 .71“ .14" -.08 1.00
Children -.02 -.11* -.10* -.30* .09 -.06 -.41* 1.00

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

*p<.05

 

135

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 17
H‘-Hu..u.o I an o 1... "nu-u ' out -'
S.T.: Social Ties Factor
SEC: Security Factor
C.A.: Community Action Factor
Years: Average Number of Years on the Block
Income: Average Income Rating of the Block
Crime: Average Crime Rating of the Block
Age: Average Age of Respondents on the Block
Children: Proportion of Households with Children
ST. SEC C.A. Years Income Crime Age Children
ST 100
SEC .71* 1.00
CA. 66* .52“ 1.00
Years 36* .43* .07 1.00
Income .36“ 69* .22 .37* 1.00
Crime -.28 -.47* .01 -.22 -.29 1.00
Age .41“ 57* .13 .88“ .54“ -.28* 1.00
Children -.31 -.46* -.40* -.42"' -.54* .03 -.57* 1.00

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

*p<.05

 

136

Table 18

u o‘i'u‘ 015%. ° 0 "non-.0: 44' at 1' '

:1 I"! ll 1.

Dependent Variable: Social Ties Factor
Independent Variables: Years, Income, Crime, Age, Children

Multiple R .30
R square .09
Adjusted R square .08
Standard Error .67
Analysis of Variance

DF Sum of Squares Mean Square

5 18.69 3.74

416 184.84 .44
F = 8.41 Signif. F = .00
Variables in the Equation:
Variable B SE B Beta T Sign. T
Years -.00 .00 -.08 -1.27 .20
Crime ‘ -.19 .06 -.14 -2.99 .00
Income .18 .04 .22 4.66 .00
Age .00 .00 .10 1.42 .16
Children .02 .07 .01 22 .83

(Constant) 3.44 .26 13.28 .00

137

Table 19

u 0"\"1‘ Han o 1011‘-H “1‘ luv 0. ' 0010.:

Dependent Variable: Social Ties Factor
Independent Variables: Income, Crime

Multiple R .29

R square .08

Adjusted R square .08

Standard Error .66

Analysis of Variance
DF Sum of Squares Mean Square

2 17.40 8.70

427 187.98 .44

F= 19.77 Signif. F= .00

Variables in the Equation:

Variable B SE B Beta T Sign. T
Income .18 .04 .23 4.90 .00
Crime - 18 .06 -.14 -2.96 .00

(Constant) 3.44 .26 15.47 .00

138

u I‘i‘u' Her... I .‘110‘4-31 «14" '0-10' '01 II It“:

Lad)

Dependent Variable: Security Factor
Independent Variables: Years, Income, Crime, Age, Children

Multiple R .42

R square .21

Adjusted R square .20

Standard Error .50

Analysis of Variance
DF Sum of Squares Mean Square

5 27.07 5.41

416 104.85 .25

F=21.48 Signif. F= .00

Variables in the Equation:

Variable B SE B Beta T Sign. T
Years -.00 .00 -.09 -l .42 .16
Crime -.19 .05 -.18 -4.04 .00
Income .22 .03 .34 7.58 .00
Age .00 .00 .15 2.36 .02
Children -.05 .05 -.05 -.99 .32

(Constant) 3.83 .20 19.66 .00

139

Table 21

u. I'i'u' new. I III' 0.0"" 1H6" mar ' l\ 1'1.--

Lml)

Dependent Variable: Security Factor
Independent Variables: Income, Crime, Age

Multiple R .44
R square .20
Adjusted R square .19
Standard Error .50
Analysis of Variance

DF Sum of Squares Mean Square

3 25.99 8.66

423 106.18 .25
F = 34.51 Signif. F = .00
Variables in the Equation:
Variable B SE B Beta T Sign. T
Income .22 .03 .34 7.64 .00
Crime -. 19 .05 -.18 -3.97 .00
Age 00 .00 .11 2.51 .01

(Constant) 3 .84 . 19 20. 3 l .00

140

Table 22

u I'K'u' Her. I .'HO°4-01 .Ia' 'Ivrw Inn Issac.

:1 1"1 ll 1.

Dependent Variable: Community Action Factor
Independent Variables: Years, Income, Crime, Age, Children

Multiple R .27
R square .07
Adjusted R square .06
Standard Error .63
Analysis of Variance

DF Sum of Squares Mean Square

5 12.41 2.48

416 164.09 .39
F = 6.29 Signif. F = .00
Variables in the Equation:
Variable B SE B Beta T Sign. T
Years -.00 .00 --.09 -1.37 .17
Income _ .16 .04 .22 4.47 .00
Crime -.08 .06 -.07 -1.47 .14
Age .00 .00 .03 .42 .67
Children - 12 .07 -.10 -1.84 .07

(Constant) 3.57 .24 14.64 .00

141

Table 23

u o'l'u' 0060'. ' I 1001‘ “our on" II an” H!“

Dependent Variable: Community Action Factor
Independent Variable: Income

Multiple R .22

R square .05

Adjusted R square .05

Standard Error .63

Analysis of Variance
DF Sum of Squares Mean Square

1 9.24 9.24

439 174.42 .40

F = 23.25 Signif. F = .00

Variables in the Equation:
Variable B SE B Beta T Sign. T

Income . 17 .03 .22 4.82 .00
(Constant) 3.77 . 12 30.25 .00

142
Table24
u I'i'u' IIaI... ' I 3x.,l\ "IIrI° I.

Dependent Variable: Social Ties Factor
Independent Variable: Security Factor

Multiple R .69

R square .48

Adjusted R square .48

Standard Error .50

Analysis of Variance
DF Sum of Squares

1 101.33

443 108.60

F=413.34 Signif. F= .00

Variables in the Equation:
Variable B SE B Beta

Security .85 .04 .69
(Constant) .27 . 16

II II .-.

Mean Square

101.33
.25
T Sign. T
20.33 .00
1.67 .09

143

Table 25
u 0“ '4 IIaI-. I I "IIII‘ IIIII II I II 10105
1.4:ch
Dependent Variable: Community Action
Independent Variable: Social Ties Factor
Multiple R .63
R square .40
Adjusted R square .40
Standard Error .50
Analysis of Variance
DF Sum of Squares Mean Square
' 1 73.95 73.95
443 110.76 .25
F=295.76 Signif. F= .00
Variables in the Equation:
Variable B , SE B Beta T Sign. T
Social Ties .59 .03 .63 17.20 .00

(Constant) 1. 14 . 12 9.40 .00

144

Table 26

u I'i‘u‘ 005.» ' I .’IIO‘4IOI .I.I° ' 'IIII° I. ° “I.

LIED

Dependent Variable: Social Ties Factor
Independent Variables: Years, Income, Crime, Age, Children

Multiple R .48

R square .23

Adjusted R square . 10

Standard Error .30

Analysis of Variance
DF Sum of Squares Mean Square

5 .84 .17

31 2.87 .09

F=1.81 SignifF=.l4

Variables in the Equation:

Variable B SE B Beta T Sign. T
Years .01 .02 .15 .42 .68
Crime -.27 . 12 -. 18 -1.05 .30
Income .09 .26 . 15 .72 .48
Age .00 .02 .08 .19 .85
Children -. 18 01 -. 12 - 57 .57

(Constant) 2.89 1.01 2.86 .01

145
Table27
u I'i'u‘ 0051.1. ' I ‘IIrI° I.

Dependent Variable: Social Ties Factor
Independent Variable: Years

Multiple R .36
R square .13
Adjusted R square .10
Standard Error .30
Analysis of Variance

DF Sum of Squares

1 .48

35 3.23
F=5.17 SignifF=03
Variables in the Equation:
Variable B SE B Beta
Years 02 .01 .36

(Constant) 3 .23 . 1 1

.
III.

Mean Square

.48

.09
T Sign. T
2.27 .03
28.50 .00

146

Table 28
u 'I ‘ ("4' II 6h. ' I I III‘ ' 'IIII‘ I '
Dependent Variable: Social Ties Factor
Independent Variable: Income
Multiple R .36
R square .13
Adjusted R square .11
Standard Error .30
Analysis of Variance

DF Sum of Squares

1 .49

35 3.22
F = 5.29 Signif. F = .03
Variables in the Equation:
Variable B SE B Beta
Income 21 .09 .36

(Constant) 4.20 .32

I: I .
Mean Square
.49
.09
T Sign. T
2.30 .03
12.97 .00

147
Table29
u I‘i'u' IIaIa. ' I a" 'IIII' .I. ' ”III.

Dependent Variable: Social Ties Factor
Independent Variable: Age

Multiple R .41
R square .16
Adjusted R square . 14
Standard Error .30
Analysis of Variance

DF Sum of Squares Mean Square

1 .61 .61

35 3.10 .09
F=6.89 Signif. F= .01
Variables in the Equation:
Variable B SE B ' Beta T Sign. T
Age 02 .01 .41 2.63 .01

(Constant) 2.78 .26 10.52 .00

148

Table 30

u rim: 0060-. ° I D‘IIIMJI «III' erIIII° ‘ II

1.21:1)

Dependent Variable: Security Factor
Independent Variables: Years, Income, Crime, Age, Children

Multiple R .77
R square .60
Adjusted R square .53
Standard Error .19
Analysis of Variance

DF Sum of Squares Mean Square

1.60 .32

31 1.09 .04
F = 9.12 Signif. F =00
Variables in the Equation:
Variable B SE B Beta T Sign. T
Years -.00 .01 -.06 -.25 .81
Crime -.36 .16 -.28 -2.26 .03
Income .22 .08 .44 2.90 .01
Age .01 .01 .25 .85 .40
Children - 13 .19 -.10 - 68 .50

(Constant) 3.27 .62 5.25 .00

149

Table 31

u I'l‘u'

Dependent Variable: Security Factor
Independent Variables: Income, Crime

Multiple R .74
R square .55
Adjusted R square .52
Standard Error . 19
Analysis of Variance
DF Sum of Squares
2 1.48
34 1.22
F = 20.69 Signif. F = .00

Variables in the Equation:

Variable B SE B Beta
Crime -.37 .15 -.29
Income .30 .06 .60

(Constant) 3 .78 .51

IIaI-. ' I .I III‘-_II lﬂ' ‘II1I°

'II II I: I .

Mean Square

.74

.04
T Sign. T
-2.45 .02
5.00 .00
7.39 .00

150
Table32
U "I"‘ Oléh . 0 '- ." 0' ' .l .‘0 I I'

Dependent Variable: Security Factor
Independent Variable: Years

Multiple R .43
R square .18
Adjusted R square . 16
Standard Error .25
Analysis of Variance

DF Sum of Squares Mean Square

1 .49 .49

35 2.20 .06
F= 7.80 Signif. F= .01
Variables in the Equation:
Variable B SE B Beta T Sign. T
Years 02 .01 .43 2.79 .01

(Constant) 3.51 .09 37.51 .00

151
Table33
u II‘l‘u' II aI.-. ' I a" 'I°I1I9 'IIII ‘3 I ,

Dependent Variable: Security Factor
Independent Variable: Age

Multiple R .57
R square .33
Adjusted R square .31
Standard Error .23
Analysis of Variance

DF Sum of Squares Mean Square

1 .88 .88

35 1.82 .05
F= 16.91 Signif. F= .00
Variables in the Equation:
Variable B SE B Beta T Sign. T
Age 02 .00 .57 4.11 .00

(Constant) 2.93 .20 14.47 .00

152

Table 34

U.I'.I’°1‘015lt.l"."'lt°'-1l\‘:01

Dependent Variable: Security Factor
Independent Variable: Children

Multiple R .57

R square .33

Adjusted R square .31

Standard Error .23

Analysis of Variance
DF Sum of Squares Mean Square

1 .88 .88

35 1.82 .05

F = 16.91 Signif. F =00

Variables in the Equation:
Variable B SE B Beta T Sign. T

Age .02 .00 .57 4.11 .00
(Constant) 2.93 .20 14.47 .00

153

Table 35

u I'i'u' 015!» I '

W11

Dependent Variable: Community Action Factor
Independent Variables: Years, Income, Crime, Age, Children

Multiple R .42
R square .18
Adjusted R square .04
Stande Error .34
Analysis of Variance
DF Sum of Squares
5 .77
31 3.55
F = 1.34 Signif. F = .28

Variables in the Equation:

Variable B SE B Beta
Years -.00 .02 -.00

Income .04 . 14 .06

Crime -.01 .29 -.00

Age -. 01 .02 -. 1 7

Children -.73 .34 -.46

(Constant) 3 .91 1 . 12

.'HO'4tII -.II.I‘ 'IIII'

IIIII II 6'10!

Mean Square
.15
.11
T Sign. T
-.01 .99
.28 .78
-.24 .98
-.40 .69
-2. 12 .04
3.48 .00

154

u I‘i‘u‘ IIaI: ' I 'IIII III II ”III .II II'I".II1I*

E'E'IEIIIII

Dependent Variable: Community Action Factor
Independent Variable: Children

Multiple R .40

R square .16

Adjusted R square .14

Standard Error .32

Analysis of Variance
DF Sum of Squares Mean Square

1 .69 .69

35 3.63 ' .10

F = 6.68 Signif. F = .01

Variables in the Equation:
' Variable B SE B Beta T Sign. T

Children -.63 .24 -.40 -2.58 .01
(Constant) 3.45 . 12 29.89 .00

155

Table 37

u I‘i'u' IIsIz. ' I ‘ II"II° I-OIII11"

Dependent Variable: Social Ties Factor
Independent Variable: Security Factor

Multiple R .72

R square .51

Adjusted R square .50

Standard Error .23

Analysis of Variance
DF Sum of Squares Mean Square

1 1.90 1.90

35 1.81 .05

F = 36.64 Signif. F = .00

Variables in the Equation:
Variable B SE B Beta T Sign. T

Security .84 .14 .72 6.05 .00
(Constant) .32 .52 .61 .54

 

156

Table 38

u I'l'u' 0061'. ' I I-. ' ‘IIII' IIIII II 6.101 3I.

Dependent Variable: Community Action Factor
Independent Variable: Social Ties Factor

Multiple R .66
R square .43
Adjusted R square .42
Standard Error .26
Analysis of Variance

DF Sum of Squares Mean Square

1 1.86 1.86

35 2.46 .07
F = 26.56 Signif. F = .00
Variables in the Equation:
Variable B SE B Beta T Sign. T
Social Ties 71 .14 .66 5.15 .00

(Constant) .73 .48 1.53 .14

157

Principal Components Analysis -- Block Level

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 39
W13
Factor Eigenvalue Pct. of Variance Cum. Pct.

1 - Social Ties 14.22 45.9 45.9
2 - Community Action 3.49 11.3 57.2
3 - Security 2.40 7.7 64.9
4 (not included) 2.09 6.8 71.7
5 (not included) 1.30 4.2 75.9
6 (not included) 1.04 3.4 79.2

 

 

 

 

 

 

158

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 40
S . l I. __ I: . . l:
1. People on this block know each other.
2. People on this block feel like a family.
3. People on this block feel connected to each other.
4. People on this block socialize with each other.
5. People on this block watch out for each other.
6. People who live on this block think of themselves as a community.
7 People on this block feel comfortable borrowing and lending things ﬁ'om each
other.
8 A feeling of community spirit exists among the residents on this block.
9. When faced with a problem on this block, residents can create a solution.
10. People on this block feel they belong here.
1 1. The people on this block help each other out when one of them has a problem.
12. People on this block take care of each other’s plants, pets, kids.
13. People on this block comfort each other in times of need.
14. Residents are able to resolve conﬂict when it arises on the block.
15. Residents on this block can reduce the amount of crime on the block.
Item number Communality Factor loadings Factor loadings Factor loadings
Social Ties Community Security
Action
1 .75 .85 .15 -.08
2 .74 .83 -.13 .19
3 .83 .82 .31 .26
4 .76 .74 .33 -.32
5 .77 .73 .22 .43
6 .78 .73 .32 .39
7 .58 .71 .12 .25
8 .88 .69 .40 .49
9 .71 .65 .47 .24
10 .64 .65 -.09 .46
11 .69 .63 .20 .50

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

159

 

 

 

 

 

 

Item number Communality Factor loadings Factor loadings Factor loadings
Social Ties Community Security
Action
12 .40 .59 . 18 . 15
13 .65 .59 .22 .50
14 .38 .52 .09 .31
1 5 . 16 .37 . 1 7 -.01

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 41

160

E '!'--E"E

People on this block participate in community improvement activities (e.g.,
community clean-ups, ﬂower plantings, etc.).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2. People on this block get things done together to improve the block.
3. On this block people talk to each other about community problems.
4. People on this block have a voice regarding important community issues.
5. People on this block participate in social activities (e. g., pot lucks, group garage
sales, etc.).
6. People on this block feel isolated from each other (reverse coded).
7. Residents are committed to the block’s ﬁrture.
8. Residents on this block attend the same church(es) or place(s) of worship.
Item number Communality Factor loadings Factor loadings Factor loadings
Social Ties Community Security
Action
1 .71 .06 .84 -.01
2 .81 .24 .84 .22
3 .75 .23 .82 .17
4 .79 .22 .81 .31
5 .60 .29 .71 .14
6 .70 .53 .60 .25
7 .73 .49 .50 .48
8 .21 -.02 .46 .02

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

161

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 42-
S . _ I . . E
1. People on this block share the same values.
2. People on this block trust each other.
3. People on this block participate in the curbside recycling program.
4. People on this block like each other.
5. People on this block feel that it is a safe place to live.
6. People on this block would give rides to each other if needed.
7. It is fairly safe to walk on this block at night.
8. People on this block can persuade the city to respond to their needs and concerns.
Item number Communality Factor loadings Factor loadings Factor loadings
Social Ties Community Security
Action
1 .74 .12 .23 .83
2 .83 .48 .19 .75
3 .57 -.09 .36 .66
4 .70 .12 .53 .64
5 .73 .56 -.17 .62
6 .69 .50 .30 .60
7 .58 .44 -.24 .58
8 .24: .30 .18 .34

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 43

II‘-IIu- I.I ’I'

(BlockLml)

. I... {-l. f.

162

Response: Interview Response Rate of Block
Refusal: Interview Refusal Rate of Block

Blood: Proportion of Respondents on Block who are Blood Donors

Helping-a: Proportion of Respondents who Helped Someone During Past Month
Helping-b: Proportion of Respondents who Helped Neighbor During Past Month

Leader: Interest of Respondents in Taking on a Leadership Role on the Block

Workwith: Interest of Respondents in Working with Neighbors for Block Improvement

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Response Refusal Blood Helping-a Helping-b Leader Workwith
Response 1 .00
Refusal -.65* 1.00
Blood .02 -. 12 1.00
Helping-a -.01 -.05 -.25 1.00
Helping-b .29 -. 10 -.17 48* 1.00
Leader .41* -.33* .09 -.31 .15 1.00
Workwith .25 -.06 .05 .02 .22 54* 1.00

 

*p<.05

 

 

I63
Table44
u I‘iem' IIaI- ' I I'II° "'1" I.

Dependent Variable: Social Ties Factor
Independent Variable: Helping

Multiple R .1 1
R square .01
Adjusted R square .01
Standard Error .72
Analysis of Variance
DF Sum of Squares
1 1.98
317 162.82
F = 3.86 Signif. F = .05
Variables in the Equation:
Variable B SE B Beta
Helping . 17 .09 . 1 1

(Constant) 3 .3 1 .07

.1 I. II a 'V‘
Mean Square
1.98
.51
T Sign. T
1.97 .05
44.48 .00

164
Table45
U. 'I ' {"4‘ 0051' . 0 0' 01° . "'11' ‘ .I§ I'l‘.I

Dependent Variable: Security Factor
Independent Variable: Helping

Multiple R . 15

R square .02

Adjusted R square .02

Standard Error .57

Analysis of Variance
DF Sum of Squares Mean Square

1 2.27 2.27

317 101.53 .32

F= 7.08 Signif. F= .01

Variables in the Equation:
Variable B SE B Beta T Sign. T

Helping .19 .07 .15 2.66 .01
(Constant) 3.32 .06 61.71 .00

165
Table46
U I‘l‘u' IIaI- ' I I'II' ' ‘rI I° IIIII II 5I1II IIII:

Dependent Variable: Community Action Factor
Independent Variable: Helping

Multiple R .02
R square .00
Adjusted R square .00
Standard Error .64
Analysis of Variance

DF Sum of Squares Mean Square

1 .05 .05

317 129.05 .41
F=.11 SignifF=.74
Variables in the Equation:
Variable B SE B Beta T Sign. T
Helping -.03 .08 -.02 -.34 .73

(Constant) 3. 14 .07 47.52 .00

166

Table 47

u I'i'u' 0!61.-. ' I l".10c. I.IWI-Il'

Dependent Variable: Social Ties Factor
Independent Variable: Interest in Local Participation

Multiple R . 15
R square .02
Adjusted R square .02
Stande Error .68
Analysis of Variance
DF Sum of Squares
1 4.69
434 202.57
F = 10.05 Signif. F =00
Variables in the Equation:
Variable B SE B Beta
Interest in L. P. .09 .03 .15

(Constant) 3.30 .06

I1II1I°

Mean Square

3.17
59.13

4.69
.47

Sign. T

.00
.00

167

Table 48

Dependent Variable: Security Factor
Independent Variable: Interest in Local Participation

Multiple R .09
R square .01
Adjusted R square .01
Stande Error .56
Analysis of Variance
DF Sum of Squares
1 1.05
434 136.52
F=3.32 Signif. F= .07
Variables in the Equation:
Variable B SE B Beta
Interest in L. P. .04 02 .09

(Constant) 3.65 .05

O
1
a

I'II'

'-1I1 II

Mean Square

1.82
79.75

1.05
.31

Sign. T

.07
.00

 

Table 49

168

“11 I... «I I. II 'II1I° IIIII II

Dependent Variable: Community Action Factor
Independent Variable: Interest in Local Participation

Multiple R .13
R square .02
Adjusted R square .01
Standard Error .64
Analysis of Variance

DF

1

434
F=7.31 SignifF=.01
Variables in the Equation:
Variable B
Interest in L. P. .08

(Constant) 3 .07

Sum of Squares Mean Square
3.04 3.04
180.13 .42
SE B Beta T Sign. T
.03 .13 2.71 .01
.05 58.33 .00

169

Table 50

u I'i‘It: II.‘.I.» I I" III.I°11II"III I.IIrI' I1I1II

Dependent Variable: Security Factor
Independent Variable: Interest in Working with Neighbors

Multiple R .1 1

R square .01

Adjusted R square .01

Standard Error .56

Analysis of Variance
DF Sum of Squares Mean Square

1 1.63 1.63

437 136.10 .31

F = 5.23 Signif. F = .02

Variables in the Equation:
Variable B SE B Beta T Sign. T

Interest in Ww/N .09 .04 .11 2.29 .02
(Constant) 3.62 .05 68.70 .00

170

TableSl
0".IIU.|.I J‘II° I'II° IIIIII‘I III. .IIII 'II

KidsPets: People on this block take care of each others’ plants, pets, kids.

Lending: People on this block feel comfortable borrowing and lending things from each
other.

Helpout: The people on this block help each other out when one of them has a problem.

Comfort: People on this block comfort each other in times of need.

Giveride: People on this block would give rides to each other if needed.

Watchout: People on this block watch out for each other.

Helping: Composite of Help-Gen, Help-Neighbor, and Blood

Help-Gen: Helped someone in the past month.

Help-Neighbor: Helped someone on the block in the past month.

Blood: Donated blood within the past year.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Individual Helping Help-Gen Help-Neighbor Blood

Level

KidsPets .13* .13* 24* .01

Lending .14* .16* .24* .00

Helpout . 10 .08 20* .02

Comfort .14“ .12* .17* .01

Giveride .12* .14* .17* .05

Watchout .13“ .12* .16“ .04
*p < .05

Block Level Help-Gen Help-Neighbor Blood

KidsPets .21 .03 .17

Lending . 15 .20 .29

Helpout .08 -. l 1 .22

Comfort .28 .08 .06

Giveride .19 .01 .11

Watchout . 13 .01 .05

 

 

 

 

 

 

171

Table 52

O O I O. I
II': It“. I. I I" I .I -. -_l I- III]I '1' II 'II‘I ”H

Improve: People on this block get things done together to improve the block.
Community Imp.: People on this block participate in community improvement activities...
Talk about Probs.: On this block people talk to each other about community problems.
Reduce: Residents on this block can reduce the amount of crime on the block.

Resolve: Residents are able to resolve conflict when it arises on this block.

Solution: When faced with a problem on this block, residents can create a solution.
Future: Residents are committed to the block’s future.

Recycle: People on this block participate in the curbside recycling program.

Persuade: People on this block can persuade the city to respond to their needs & concerns.
Participation: Interest in Local Participation (Composite of Workwith and Leadership)
Workwith: Interest in Working with Neighbors to Improve Block Conditions
Leadership: Interest in Assuming a Leadership Role on the Block

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Individual Level Participation Workwith Leadership
Improve .12“ .12“ .08

Community Imp. .12“ .10“ .09

Talk about Probs. .22“ .20" .18“

Reduce 25* .24“ .19“

Resolve .01 .04 -.02

Solution .08 .08 .05

Future .12‘ .12“ .08

Recycle .00 .00 .00

Persuade .06 .05 .05

 

 

 

 

 

 

*p < .05

172

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 52 (cont’d.)
Block Level Workwith Leadership
Improve 46* .23
Community Imp. 53* .31
Talk about Probs. .23 .26
Reduce .23 .17
Resolve -.09 -.40*
Solution .07 -.24
Future .29 .07
Recycle . 1 8 .22
Persuade -.09 -.09

 

 

 

 

 

*p < .05

173

 

 

 

 

Table 53
0".OIU..,0 I.‘ .0] I]. II "I a). D I I ‘:0
1.9221)
Housing Value Rental Value Percent Owned Percent Occupied

Social Ties .21 .03 .23 .00

Security .48“ .07 45* .04

Community .23 .03 .17 -. 13

Action

 

 

 

 

 

 

*p < .05

 

LIST OF REFERENCES

LIST OF REFERENCES

Amato, P. R. (1990). Personality and social network involvement as predictors of
helping behavior in everyday life. W“), 31-43.

American Public Health Association (unknown) W
W [Brochure] Washington, DC Author

Bar-Tal, D., & Raviv, A. (1990). A cognitive-learning model of helping behavior
development. Possible implications and applications. In N Eisenberg (Ed. ), The

W (pp 199-217). New York. Academic Press, Inc.

Berkman, L. F., & Syme, S L. (1979) Social networks, host resistance, and
mortality: A nine-year follow-up study of Alameda County residents. Amedmlgumalgf

WC) 136-204

Bretz, R. D., Jr., Ash, R. A., & Dreher, G. F. (1989). Do people make the place?
An examination of the attraction-selection-attrition hypothesis. Whom
42(3), 561-581

Buckner, J. C (1988). The development of an instrument to measure

neighborhood cohesion Amencanloumamﬂlommumﬁmholwo) 771 --791

Burn, S. M (1991). Social psychology and the stimulation of recycling behaviors:
The block leader approach Mmﬂmmﬂlmhmomnw) 611-629

Chavis, D. M. ,& Wandersman, A (1990) Sense of community in the urban
environment: A catalyst for participation and community development. Amedgmloumal

WW“) 55- 81

Cochrun, S. E. (1994). Understanding and enhancing neighborhood sense of
community W“) 92-99

Darden, J. T., Hill, R. C., Thomas, 1., & Thomas, R. (1987).]291W
W Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

174

175

Davidson, W. B. ,& Cotter, P. R. (1986). Measurement of sense of community

within the Sphere of city WWW), 608- 619

Davidson, W. B., & Cotter, P. R (1989). Sense of community and political
participation loumalofﬂommumﬂmholoaxJJApril), 119-125

Duhl, L. J. (1984, October). WWW Paper
presented at Beyond Health Care: A Working Conference on Healthy Public Policy,

Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

Duhl, L. J. (1986). Planning for and getting a healthy city. W
SnrnmerlEall. 55-57-

Dunham, H. W. (1986). Commentary. The community today. Place or process.
WWW 399-404

Eisenberg. N- (Ed-)- (1982). Wider. New York:

Academic Press Inc.

Eisenberg, N. (1991) Meta-analytic contributions to the literature on prosocial
behavior WWW 273-282

F essler, D. R. (1952). The development of a scale for measuring community

solidarity. Ruraljocioloale. 144-152.

Florin, P. ,& Wandersman, A (1990). An introduction to citizen participation,
voluntary organizations, and community development: Insights for empowerment through

research Americanioumamfﬁommunimﬂwhmml) 41- 54

Flynn, B. C. (1991). Healthy cities Indiana: Mainstreaming community health in
the United States. Amencanloumamiﬁuhlicﬂmw). 510-511.

Fried, M (1984). The structure and signiﬁcance of community satisfaction.

Ronnlatmaniﬁnnmnmcmiﬂ-86

Gates, C T. (1987). The National Civic Index. A new approach to community
problem solving WWW). 472-279

Gilderbloom, J 1., & Capek, S. M (1992). Santa Monica a decade later: Urban
progressives in ofﬁce WWW 115-131

176

Giroult, E. (1987). Selection of environmental health indicators. Paper presented
to the World Health Organization Regional Ofﬁce for Europe workshop on healthy cities
indicators Barcelona, Spain, ICP/HSR 619/6

Glynn, T. J (1981). Psychological sense of community: Measurement and
application HumanRelationLMU) 789- 818

George, J. M. (1990). Personality, affect, and behavior in groups. W
WC), 107-116.

Goss, K. A. (1994). Rebuilding community amid chaos. WNW
601111130. 1, 12-15.

Hartnagel, T. F. (1979). The perception and fear of crime: Implications for
neighborhood cohesion, social activity, and community aﬂ‘ect. M 176-193.

Henderson, Z. P. (1995). Renewing our social fabric. W
23(1), 16-18.

Hill, J. L. (1996). Psychological sense of community. Suggestions for future
research MW“) 431-438

Hillery, G. A., Jr. (1955). Deﬁnitions of community: Areas of agreement. Rural
529W 111-123.

Hinde. R. A., & Grobel, J. (Eds). (1991). WWW
Cambridge, GB: Cambridge University Press.

Hunter, A. (1975) The loss of community: An empirical test through replication.
WWW 537- 552

Hutcheson, J. D., Jr, & Prather, J. E. (1988). Community mobilization and
participation in the zoning process. W0), 346-368

Iscoe, I. (1974). Community psychology and the competent community. American
W(August), 607-613.

Jackson, S. E, Brett, J. F., Sessa, V. 1., Cooper, D. M., Julin, J. A., & Peyronnin,
K. (1991). Some differences make a difference: Individual dissimilarity and group
heterogeneity as correlates of recruitment, promotions, and turnover. W

ammo), 675-689-

177

Kaplan, M., & James, F. (Eds) (1990). W
Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

Kasarda, J. D. ,& Janowitz, M. (1974). Community attachment 1n mass society
WWW) 328-339

Key, W. H. (1965). Urbanism and neighboring. WM 379-
385.

Klein, K. J. & D',Aunno T. A. (1986) Psychological sense of commuruty in the
workplace Wmmmﬂmtober) 365-3 77

Kohn. A. (1990). WWW
W New York: Basic Books, Inc, Publishers.

Korte, C (1981) Constraints on helping behavior in an urban environment. In J P.

Rushton & R M Sorrentino (1345) WW3.
Wm (pp. 316-327). Hillsdale, NJ. Lawrence Erlbaum

Associates, Publishers.

Krupat, E., & Guild, W. (1980, June). The measurement of community social
climate. WWO). 195-206-

Lackey, A S, Burke, R. & Peterson, M. (1987). Healthy communities: The goal
of community development We) 1- 17

Lambert, S J... & Hopkins, K (1995). Occupational conditions and workers’ sense

of community: Variations by gender and race WW
W0) l51- 179

Levine, M. D. (1986). Working it out: A community re-creation approach to crime
prevention lmrmaloﬁCommuanRmholoaJﬂoaober) 378-390

Levine, R. V. ,Martinez, T. S, Brase, G., & Sorenson, K. (1994). Helping 1n 36
U S cities WWO) 69-82

McGuire, A. M. (1994). Helping behaviors 1n the natural environment: Dimensions
and correlates of helping WWW 1) 45- 56

McMillan, D W., & Chavis, D. M. (1986). Sense of community: A deﬁnition and
theory WONW) 6-23

178

Moos, R. H. (1976). W
W New York: John erey & Sons.

National Center for Health Statistics. (1989). “AIDS knowledge and attitudes for
October and November, 1988." W

Newbrough,J. R, & Chavis, D M. (1986). Psychological sense of commumty I:
Foreword JoumalgLComunitLRmholmlﬂJanuary) 3- 5

O’Brien, D. J., & Ayidiya, S. (1991) Neighborhood community and life
satisfaction WU) 21-37

Perkins, D. D., Florin, P., Rich, R. R., Wandersman, A., & Chavis, D. M. (1990).
Participation and the social and physical environment of residential blocks: Crime and

community context. MW“). 83-115.

Piliavin! A.. &Ca11ero P L (1991)Gi1dnx.ﬂlood_1hene3elonment_o£an
WW Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press.

Pretty, G. M. H. (1990). Relating psychological sense of community to social
climate characteristics. WUanuary), 60-65

Pretty G. M H. Andrewes, L., & Collett, C (1994). Exploring adolescents' sense

of community and its relationship to loneliness. MW
. 22(October), 346-358.

Putnam, R D. (1993). What makes democracy work? W
32(2),101-107.

Putnam, R. D. (1995). Bowling alone: America's declining social capital. Journal
W1 11mm). 65-78.

Rich, R C. (1980). The dynamics of leadership 1n neighborhood organizations.
WWW” 570-5 87

Riger, S. &Lavrakas, P J. (1981). Community ties: Patterns of attachment and

social interaction in urban neighborhoods Amedmloumalnfﬁommuniuﬁmholm
2( 1) 55-66

Robinson, D., & Wilkinson, D. (1995). Sense of community in a remote mining

town: Validating a neighborhood cohesion scale. Ameﬁmloumﬂgﬂﬂgmmunny
Emholmiﬂ 1) 137-148

179

Sarason, S B (1974) MW
W. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Schneider, B. (1987a). E= f(P, B): The road to a radical approach to person-
environment ﬁt momma) 353- 361

Schneider, B. (1987b). The people make the place. W0),
43 7-453.

Schneider, B... Goldstein, H. W., & Smith, D. B. (1995). The ASA framework: An
update. WM), 747-773.

Senn, D. J (1988). Myopic social psychology. An overemphasis on individualistic
explanations of social behavior. We), 45- 52.

Shaffer, C. R., & Anundsen, K. (1993). W New
York: Jeremy P. Tarcher/Perigee Books.

Short 1 F Jr (Ed) (1971) IheﬁocialiahdmﬁtheMetmpolisﬁomnhutions
W Chicago: University of Chicago Press

Short. 1. F .. Jr. (Ed). (1986). WWW Beverly
Hills, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Smith, R. A. (1975). Measuring neighborhood cohesion: A review and some
suggestions. W0). 143-160.

Smithson, M., Amato, P. R., & Pearce, P. (1983). W
Behmdour. Oxford: Pergarnon Press.

Syme, S. L. (1994). The social environment and health. WM), 79-86.

Tallman, I. (1986). Social history and the life-course perspective on the family: a

view from the bridge in 1 F Short Jr (Ed) Wartime:
(pp 255-281). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Unger, D. G., & Wandersman, A. (1982). Neighboring 1n an urban
environment WW6) 493- 509

Unger, D G., & Wandersman, A. (1983) Neighboring and its role 1n block

organizations: An exploratory report Americanloumalomommunimﬁmholmm
291-300

180

Unger, D. G., & Wandersman, A. (1985). The importance of neighbors. The
social, cognitive, and aﬁ‘ective components of neighboring. W

W0) 139- 169

United States Department of Commerce, Economics, & Statistics Administration

Bureau of the Census (November,1992). WWI);

Wallerstein, N. (1993). Empowerment and health. The theory and practice of
community change Wﬁ) 218-227

Wandersman, A. (1984). Citizen participation. In K Heller, R H. Price, S.
Reinharz, S. Riger, A Wandersman, & T A. D’Aunno (Eds.,) WM

Commumtulhangeﬁhallengmﬂheﬁumu®p 337- 379) Paciﬁc Grove, CA
Brooks/Cole Publishing Co.

Wandersman, A., & Giamartino, G A. (1980). Community and individual
diﬂ‘erence characteristics as inﬂuences on initial participation. MW

Wu), 217- 228.

Whorton, J W., & Moore, A B. (1984). Surmnative scales for measuring
community satisfaction. W 297-307.

Zimmerman, M. ,& Rappaport, J. (1988) Citizen participation, perceived control,

and psychological empowerment AmericanloumalﬂommunimﬂmholmJﬂS)
725- 750