Loading…

Protocol - Neighborhood Collective Efficacy - Community Cohesion and Informal Social Control

Add to My Toolkit
Description:

This protocol includes 10 Likert-style, interviewer-administered questions from the Project on Human Development in Chicago Neighborhoods (PHDCN). The Social Cohesion and Informal Social Control subscales include five items each.

Protocol:

Community Cohesion

Now I’m going to read some statements about things that people in your neighborhood may or may not do.

For each of these statements, please tell me whether you strongly agree, agree, neither agree nor disagree, disagree or strongly disagree.

1. This is a close-knit neighborhood.

[ ] strongly agree

[ ] agree

[ ] neither agree nor disagree

[ ] disagree

[ ] strongly disagree

[ ] don’t know

[ ] refused

2. People around here are willing to help their neighbors.

[ ] strongly agree

[ ] agree

[ ] neither agree nor disagree

[ ] disagree

[ ] strongly disagree

[ ] don’t know

[ ] refused

3. People in this neighborhood generally don’t get along with each other.

[ ] strongly agree

[ ] agree

[ ] neither agree nor disagree

[ ] disagree

[ ] strongly disagree

[ ] don’t know

[ ] refused

4. People in this neighborhood do not share the same values.

[ ] strongly agree

[ ] agree

[ ] neither agree nor disagree

[ ] disagree

[ ] strongly disagree

[ ] don’t know

[ ] refused

5. People in this neighborhood can be trusted.

[ ] strongly agree

[ ] agree

[ ] neither agree nor disagree

[ ] disagree

[ ] strongly disagree

[ ] don’t know

[ ] refused

Informal Social Control

For each of the following, please tell me if it is very likely, likely, neither likely nor unlikely, unlikely, or very unlikely that people in your neighborhood would act in the following manner.

6. If a group of neighborhood children were skipping school and hanging out on a street corner, how likely is that your neighbors would do something about it?

[ ] very likely

[ ] likely

[ ] neither likely nor unlikely

[ ] unlikely

[ ] very unlikely

[ ] don’t know

[ ] refused

7. If some children were spray-painting graffiti on a local building, how likely is it that your neighbors would do something about it?

[ ] very likely

[ ] likely

[ ] neither likely nor unlikely

[ ] unlikely

[ ] very unlikely

[ ] don’t know

[ ] refused

8. If a child was showing disrespect to an adult, how likely is it that people in your neighborhood would scold that child?

[ ] very likely

[ ] likely

[ ] neither likely nor unlikely

[ ] unlikely

[ ] very unlikely

[ ] don’t know

[ ] refused

9. If there was a fight in front of your house and someone was being beaten or threatened, how likely is it that your neighbors would break it up?

[ ] very likely

[ ] likely

[ ] neither likely nor unlikely

[ ] unlikely

[ ] very unlikely

[ ] don’t know

[ ] refused

10. Suppose that because of budget cuts the fire station closest to your home was going to be closed down by the city. How likely is it that neighborhood residents would organize to try to do something to keep the fire station open?

[ ] very likely

[ ] likely

[ ] neither likely nor unlikely

[ ] unlikely

[ ] very unlikely

[ ] don’t know

[ ] refused

Protocol Name from Source:

Project on Human Development in Chicago Neighborhoods (PHDCN), Community Survey, 1994-1995.

Availability:

Publicly available

Personnel and Training Required

No specific training is needed if data are collected through a self-administered questionnaire. If interviewers administer the questionnaire, the interviewer must be trained to conduct personal interviews with individuals from the general population and found competent to administer these particular questions (i.e., tested by an expert) at the completion of this training. The interviewer should be trained to prompt respondents further if a “don’t know” response is provided.

Equipment Needs

These questions can be administered in a computerized or noncomputerized format (i.e., paper-and pencil instrument). Computer software is necessary to develop computer-assisted instruments. The interviewer will require a laptop computer or handheld computer to administer or to allow the respondent to self-administer a computer-assisted questionnaire.

Requirements
Requirement CategoryRequired
Major equipment No
Specialized training No
Specialized requirements for biospecimen collection No
Average time of greater than 15 minutes in an unaffected individual No
Mode of Administration

Interviewer-administered questionnaire

Life Stage:

Adult

Participants:

Adults, aged 18 years and older; children younger than 18 years old, by parent report.

Specific Instructions:

Although used in the context of a personal interview, the questions and response categories are straightforward and can be adapted to a self-administered format.

Selection Rationale

The collective efficacy scale from the Project on Human Development in Chicago Neighborhoods was selected because it is a widely used, validated protocol with available recent research documenting its validity, reliability, and association with multiple health-related outcomes. Items from the collective efficacy scale have been incorporated into major studies of neighborhoods and health, including the Los Angeles Family and Neighborhood Survey (Cohen, Finch, Bower, & Sastry, 2006; Cohen, Inagami, & Finch, 2007) and the Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing Study (Burdette et al., 2006).

Language

English, Polish, Spanish

Standards
StandardNameIDSource
Common Data Elements (CDE) Social Environment Neighborhood Efficacy Assessment Description Text 3139335 CDE Browser
Logical Observation Identifiers Names and Codes (LOINC) Neighborhood - comm cohesion proto 63026-9 LOINC
Derived Variables

None

Process and Review

The Expert Review Panel #2 (ERP 2) reviewed the measures in the Demographics, Environmental Exposures, and Social Environments domains.

Guidance from ERP 2 includes:

• Revised descriptions of the measure

Back-compatible: no changes to Data Dictionary

Previous version in Toolkit archive (link)

Source

National Archive of Criminal Justice Data (NACJD), Project on Human Development in Chicago Neighborhoods (PHDCN). Community Survey 1994-1995. Questions 11b, 11e, 11f, 11k, 11m (Questions 1-5) and 12a-12c, 12e, 12f (Questions 6-10).

General References

Browning, C. R., Burrington, L. A., Leventhal, T., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (2008). Neighborhood structural inequality, collective efficacy, and sexual risk behavior among urban youth. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 49, 269-285.

Burdette, H. L., Wadden, T. A., & Whitaker, R. C. (2006). Neighborhood safety, collective efficacy, and obesity in women with young children. Obesity, 14, 518-525.

Cagney, K. A., & Browning, C. R. (2007). Exploring neighborhood-level variation in asthma and other respiratory diseases. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 19, 229-236.

Cagney, K. A., Browning, C. R., & Wallace, D. M. (2007). The Latino paradox in neighborhood context: The case of asthma and other respiratory conditions. American Journal of Public Health, 97, 919-925.

Cohen, D., Finch, B., Bower, A., & Sastry, N. (2006). Collective efficacy and obesity: The potential influence of social factors on health. Social Science and Medicine, 62, 769-778.

Cohen, D. A., Inagami, S., & Finch, B. (2007). The built environment and collective efficacy. Health and Place, 14, 198-208.

Raudenbush, S. W. (2003). The quantitative assessment of neighborhood social environments. In I. Kawachi & L. F. Berkman (Eds.), Neighborhoods and health (pp. 112-131). New York: Oxford University Press.

Raudenbush, S. W., & Sampson, R. J. (1999). Ecometrics: Toward a science of assessing ecological settings, with application to the systematic social observation of neighborhoods. Sociological Methodology, 29, 1-41.

Sampson, R. J. (2003). Neighborhood-level context and health: Lessons from sociology. In I. Kawachi and L. F. Berkman (Eds.), Neighborhoods and health (pp. 132-146). New York: Oxford University Press.

Sampson, R. J., & Wikstrom, P.-O. H. (2008). The social order of violence in Chicago and Stockholm neighborhoods: A comparative inquiry. In I. Shapiro, S. Kalyvas, & T. Masoud (Eds.), Order, conflict, and violence (pp. 97-119). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Protocol ID:

210801

Variables:
Export Variables
Variable NameVariable IDVariable DescriptionVersiondbGaP Mapping
PX210801_Close_Knit_Neighborhood PX210801010000 This is a close-knit neighborhood. 4 N/A
PX210801_Neighbors_Break_Up_Fight PX210801090000 If there was a fight in front of your house and someone was being beaten or threatened, how likely is it that your neighbors would break it up? 4 N/A
PX210801_Neighbors_Keep_Station_Open PX210801100000 Suppose that because of budget cuts the fire station closest to your home was going to be closed down by the city. How likely is it that neighborhood residents would organize to try to do something to keep the fire station open? 4 N/A
PX210801_Neighbors_Report_Children_On_StreetCorners PX210801060000 If a group of neighborhood children were skipping school and hanging out on a street corner, how likely is that your neighbors would do something about it? 4 N/A
PX210801_Neighbors_Report_Children_Painting_Graffiti PX210801070000 If some children were spray-painting graffiti on a local building, how likely is it that your neighbors would do something about it? 4 N/A
PX210801_Neighbors_Scold_Child_Showing_Disrespect PX210801080000 If a child was showing disrespect to an adult, how likely is it that people in your neighborhood would scold that child? 4 N/A
PX210801_People_Can_Be_Trusted PX210801050000 People in this neighborhood can be trusted. 4 N/A
PX210801_People_DoNot_Share_Same_Values PX210801040000 People in this neighborhood do not share the same values. 4 N/A
PX210801_People_Dont_Get_Along PX210801030000 People in this neighborhood generally don't get along with each other. 4 N/A
PX210801_People_Help_Neighbors PX210801020000 People around here are willing to help their neighbors. 4 N/A
Research Domain Information
Measure Name:

Neighborhood Collective Efficacy - Community Cohesion and Informal Social Control

Release Date:

May 31, 2016

Definition

This measure is a questionnaire to assess the mutual trust and shared expectations among neighbors.

Purpose

This measure can be used to determine how the neighborhood or community context modifies disease risk, prevalence, and severity. Collective efficacy includes the following: social cohesion, the relationships between neighbors and informal social control, community pressure for norms and laws, and other factors that can influence health-related behaviors or access to health care. Research has documented effects of neighborhood collective efficacy on obesity in children and adolescents (Cohen, Finch, Bower, & Sastry, 2006), sexual risk behavior among adolescents (Browning et al., 2008), and adult asthma (Cagney and Browning, 2007; Cagney et al., 2007), among others.

Keywords

Social environments, collective efficacy, social cohesion, informal social control, neighborhood, community, Project on Human Development in Chicago Neighborhoods, PHDCN, Community Survey