The Community Connections Index: Measurement of Community Engagement and Sense of Community

1. The CommunityConnections Index: Measurement of Community Engagement and Sense of Community Jay A. Mancini, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University Gary L. Bowen, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill James A. Martin, Bryn Mawr College William B. Ware, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Hawaii International Conference on the Social Sciences, Honolulu, June, 2003 Mancini, Bowen, Martin, & Ware, 2003

2. Purpose of the paper • To present the theoretical context that focuses on community connections • To propose a measure of community connections • To present information that addresses the validity and reliability of the measure • To discuss the merits of the measure and its use in survey research • To discuss implications for community assessment Mancini, Bowen, Martin, & Ware, 2003

3. Issues and contexts • Study of community connections is emergent • Community effects often overlooked factors in quality of life studies • Degree to which people are imbedded in their communities may escape the attention of those who seek to discover why some neighborhoods thrive while others despair • Improving quality of life is partially tied into how engaged people are in their community and how connected they feel with that community Mancini, Bowen, Martin, & Ware, 2003

4. Theoretical context: Core terms • Community engagement (CE) and sense of community (SC) are core elements of community connections • Community engagement is the degree to which an individual is active with other individuals and groups around particular community events and issues; CE uses formal networks as a vehicle for connections • Sense of community is the degree to which an individual is affectively connected with others; SC uses informal networks as a vehicle for connections • Community engagement and sense of community are interrelated • Each informs and facilitates the other • Each has a unique contribution to understanding community connections and in combination they provide a broad understanding of the instrumental and affective dimensions of community life Mancini, Bowen, Martin, & Ware, 2003

5. Theoretical context: Background studies • Social organization (Furstenberg & Hughes, 1997) • How people interrelate, cooperate, and provide support to each other; social organization is a dimension of community, along with the physical infrastructure, the social and demographic infrastructure, and institutional resources • Social capital (Coleman, 1988; Paxton, 1999; Putnam, 2000) • The sum of resources (information, opportunities, and instrumental support) that develop from reciprocal relationships that are embodied in social networks among people in both formal and informal settings. • Community capacity (Mancini, Martin, & Bowen, 2003; Bowen, Mancini, Martin, Ware, & Nelson, 2003; Bowen, Martin, Mancini, & Nelson, 2000) • Theory of change Mancini, Bowen, Martin, & Ware, 2003

6. Theoretical context: Community capacity model • Elements of the model: • Community capacity • Extent to which community members demonstrate sense of shared responsibility for the general welfare of the community and its members • Extent to which community members demonstrate collective competence in taking advantage of opportunities for addressing community needs and confronting situations that threaten the safety and well-being of community members • Capacity is the actual or potential ability to perform, yield, or withstand • Community results • Aggregate, broad-based outcomes that reflect the collective efforts of individuals and families; these benefits are owned and achieved by individuals and families;examples are safety, health and well-being, family adaptation, and community satisfaction Mancini, Bowen, Martin, & Ware, 2003

7. Theoretical context: Community capacity model • Formal and informal networks • Formal networks are those associated with agencies and organizations; they address the support needs of individuals and families, and sponsor activities that provide citizens with opportunities for meaningful participation in the collective life of the community • Informal networks include group associations, and less-organized personal and collective relationships that are maintained voluntarily by individuals and families, including relationships with work associates, neighbors, and friends. Mutual exchanges and reciprocal responsibility are the cornerstones of informal ties. Mancini, Bowen, Martin, & Ware, 2003

8. A Theory of Change:Community Capacity Model Demonstrate by actions: shared responsibility and collective competence Informal Networks Community Capacity Community Results Formal Networks • Agencies, organizations, community members, and networks: • A focus on strengths and connections Mancini, Bowen, Martin, & Ware, 2003

9. The study: 2002 Virginia quality of life survey • Survey of 769 Virginia residents ages 18 to 99 • Fielded in spring and early summer • Participants randomly selected and included people who had listed and unlisted telephone numbers • Response rate of 60% • Respondents interviewed by telephone • Margin of error at the 95% confidence level is ± 3.6% • Research conducted by the Survey Research Center at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University (Alan Bayer and Susan Willis-Walton, Principal Investigators) Mancini, Bowen, Martin, & Ware, 2003

10. The study: Sample characteristics • Sixty-five percent are 40 years of age and older • Fifty-two percent are women • Forth-three percent reside outside of Virginia’s heavily populated urban crescent (eastern side of the state spanning from Northern Virginia to Richmond and Hampton Roads) • Forty percent graduated from college • Seventy-two percent are white; 19% are black • Fifty-eight percent are married Mancini, Bowen, Martin, & Ware, 2003

11. The community connections index • Fifteen-item measure grounded in social capital and community capacity theories • Items originally organized into two dimensions of community connections • Community engagement (8 items) • Sense of community (7 items) • Community engagement reflects formal network integration • Sense of community reflects informal network integration • The interviewer stated: Now I would like to know about your relationships with people in your community, other than family members. How often in the past year (“often, sometimes, rarely, or never”) have you: Mancini, Bowen, Martin, & Ware, 2003

12. Community connections index items • Community engagement items: • Joined with people to solve problems • Felt like you could make a difference in your community • Volunteered in the community • Participated in community events and activities • Attended club meetings • Attended religious services • Attended an informational meeting • Attended local government/political meeting Mancini, Bowen, Martin, & Ware, 2003

13. Community connections index items • Sense of community items: • Spent time when needed a little company • Showed concern for others • Talked with people about difficulties • Made new friends with someone • Felt like belonged in the community • Felt own circumstances were similar to others • Felt close to other people in the community Mancini, Bowen, Martin, & Ware, 2003

14. Data analysis: Principal components procedure • Principal components analysis (varimax rotation, Kaiser normalization) was used • Two- factors with eigenvalues greater than one • Eigenvalue of community engagement factor is 6.07(40.4% of total explained variance) • Eigenvalue of sense of community factor is 1.43 (9.53% of total explained variance) Mancini, Bowen, Martin, & Ware, 2003

15. Factor loadings: Community engagement (CE) and sense of community (SC) • FACTORCESC • Attended informational meeting .79 .18 • Attended club meetings .76 .17 • Attended local government/political meeting .75 .02 • Joined with people to solve problems .68 .32 • Volunteered in community .65 .32 • Participated in community events/activities .61 .45 • Felt like could make a difference in community .58 .38 • Attended religious services .39 .21 • Felt close to others in community .22 .76 • Felt like belonged in community .19 .71 • Spent time when needed a little company .23 .68 • Showed concern for others .27 .67 • Made friends with someone .22 .59 • Felt own circumstances similar to others .13 .58 • Talked with people about difficulties .24 .56 Mancini, Bowen, Martin, & Ware, 2003

16. Data analysis: Internal consistency reliability • Based on factor loadings Cronbach’s alpha computed • Alpha for 8-item community engagement measure is .85 • Alpha for 7-item sense of community measure is .81 • Alpha for combined 15-item measure is .89 • Relationship between the community engagement (CE) and sense of community (SC) measures • Product-moment correlation of .63 (p<.001) Mancini, Bowen, Martin, & Ware, 2003

17. Data analysis: Construct validity • Contrast of Community Connections Index with other measures in the data set • General expectation that the measure should be correlated with certain measures and should not be correlated with other measures in the data set • Construct validity measures: • Individual quality of life and satisfaction • Rating of Virginia as place to live • Attitudes about state spending on programs and services • Quality of organizations and services in the community • Worries about problems that individuals and families may face • Product-moment correlations used to examine correspondence between validity measures and the CCI Mancini, Bowen, Martin, & Ware, 2003

18. Construct validity assumptions • Individual quality of life and satisfaction • Individuals more satisfied with their life more likely to be connected; predicated on assumption that connections contribute positively to satisfaction • Rating of Virginia as place to live • Those who rate opportunities more positively more likely to be connected because they are more involved in community life and therefore have a greater investment in the community • Attitudes about state spending on programs and services • Those who feel not enough is being spent more likely to be connected with community issues and concerns • Quality of organizations and services in the community • Those who rate services more favorably may be more imbedded in the community, however, familiarity and community connections may raise expectations of those organizations and services. • Worries about problems that individuals and families may face • It is not anticipated that worry per se should be directly related to either sense of community or community engagement Mancini, Bowen, Martin, & Ware, 2003

19. Construct validity results • Overall CCI measure correlated (p<.01) • .30 with individual quality of life and satisfaction • .25 with rating of Virginia as place to live • .16 with attitudes about spending on social programs • .31 with quality of organizations and services • .03 (ns) with worries • Community engagement measure correlated (p<.01) • .24 with individual quality of life and satisfaction • .22 with rating of Virginia as place to live • .17 with attitudes about spending on social programs • .25 with quality of organizations and services • .01 (ns) with worries • Sense of community measure correlated (p<.01) • .31 with individual quality of life and satisfaction • .24 with rating of Virginia as place to live • .12 with attitudes about spending on social programs • .33 with quality of organizations and services • .04 (ns) with worries Mancini, Bowen, Martin, & Ware, 2003

20. Conclusions and discussion • The Community Connections Index reflects elements of theories of social capital and community capacity • This preliminary analysis indicates that the CCI has merit as a brief measure of two primary dimensions of community connections • Community engagement • Sense of community • Most CCI items clearly load on one of the two factors • Those items where the loadings are less clear pertain to participating in community events and activities, feeling like one could make a difference in the community, and attending religious services Mancini, Bowen, Martin, & Ware, 2003

21. Conclusions and discussion • The CCI relates to other indicators of quality of life in predictable ways • While the measure is unrelated to a measure of worries, it is related to a person’s estimation of the quality of life in their community and to their individual satisfaction with life • The CCI assesses two very important aspects of community life that are amenable to change: • How involved people are in community events, community decision-making activities, and so on is malleable. This involvement is grounded in formal networks that are dependent on productive informal relationships. Formal organizations can be targeted toward facilitating these informal networks. Mancini, Bowen, Martin, & Ware, 2003

22. Conclusions and discussion • The sentiments that people hold about their community and the informal relationships that they maintain are also malleable. Interaction and transaction by definition are active rather than passive, and can be enhanced or diminished. • Next steps in research on the CCI include: • Further refinement of items within the measure that are most closely related and additional examination of items that are less clearly related to a construct • Assessing the generalizability of the CCI with regard to particular cultural and societal sub-groups, which would include comparison of women and men, ethnic clusters, and various age groups • Accessing the CCI in multivariate studies on social capital and community capacity • Inclusion of the CCI in other research studies so that additional examinations of its psychometric properties can be conducted Mancini, Bowen, Martin, & Ware, 2003

23. References • Bowen, G.L., Mancini, J.A., Martin, J.A., Ware, W.B., & Nelson, J.P. (2003). Promoting the adaptation of military families: An empirical test of a community practice model. Family Relations, 52,33-44. • Bowen, G.L., Martin, J.A., Mancini, J.A., Nelson, J.P. (2000). Community capacity: Antecedents and consequences. Journal of Community Practice, 8, 2-21. • Coleman, J. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of Sociology, 94, S95-S120. • Furstenberg, F.F., & Hughes, M.E. (1997). The influence of neighborhoods on children’s development: A theoretical perspective and research agenda. In J. Brooks-Gunn, G.J., Duncan, & J.L. Abner (Eds.), Neighborhood poverty. Vol. 2: Policy implications in studying neighborhoods (pp. 23-47). NY: Russell Sage Foundation. • Mancini, J.A., Martin, J.A., & Bowen, G.L. (2003). Community capacity. In T. Gullotta & M. Bloom (Eds.), Encyclopedia of primary prevention and health promotion. NY: Kluwer Academic/Plenum. • Paxton, P. (1999). Is social capital declining in the United States? A multiple indicator assessment. American Journal of Sociology, 105, 88-127. • Putnam, R.D. (2000). Bowling alone. NY: Simon & Schuster. Mancini, Bowen, Martin, & Ware, 2003

24. For further information about the CCI and permission to use the CCI in research contact: Jay A. Mancini, Ph.D. Professor of Human Development Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University 303 Wallace Hall Blacksburg, VA 24061 mancini@vt.edu Mancini, Bowen, Martin, & Ware, 2003