Citizen participation in neighborhood organizations in poor communities and its relationship to neighborhood and organizational collective efficacy.
Beck, Elizabeth
Collective efficacy describes residents' perceptions regarding
their ability to work with their neighbors to intervene in neighborhood
issues to maintain social control and solve problems. This study
examines whether citizen participation in neighborhood organizations
located in poor communities is related to neighborhood and
organizational collective efficacy among residents. The results indicate
that the more residents participated in their neighborhood organization,
the greater their level of organizational collective efficacy, but not
neighborhood collective efficacy. The results of the current study will
help support social workers and other community practitioners understand
how to effectively facilitate citizen participation in ways that enhance
collective efficacy in poor communities. Implications for social work
practice and research are discussed.
Keywords: neighborhood collective efficacy, organizational
collective efficacy, citizen participation, neighborhood organizations,
poor communities, community practice, community level research
**********
In recent years, there has been a revitalization of community-based
social work strategies that seek to enhance citizen participation and
build the capacity of residents to address problems in poor communities
(Johnson, 1998; Schott, 1997; Weft, 1996). These strategies have been
used to confront a variety of issues, including those that pertain to at-risk youth, unemployment, affordable housing, crime and safety, and
urban blight (Chaskin, Brown, Venkatesh & Vidal, 2001; Murphy &
Cunningham, 2003).
Citizen participation is the active, voluntary involvement of
individuals and groups to change problematic conditions in poor
communities, and influence the policies and programs that affect the
quality of their lives or the lives of other residents (Gamble &
Weil, 1995). Citizen participation has enhanced the effectiveness of
community-based social work strategies by strengthening resident
participation in democratic processes, assisting groups in advocating
for their needs, and building organizational and community
problem-solving resources and capacities (Chaskin, et al., 2001;
Johnson, 1998; Schorr, 1997; Weil, 1996).
Despite the potential of citizen participation, the barriers to
facilitating it can be substantial, including the multiple demands on an
individual's time. Wandersman and Florin (2001) argue that a major
resource of small voluntary organizations, such as neighborhood
organizations, is the participation of its members, including their time
and energy which must be mobilized into active involvement and
performance of tasks. Therefore, it is important that residents believe
they have the capacity to make a difference. Collective efficacy is a
term used to describe residents' perceptions regarding their
ability to work with their neighbors to intervene in neighborhood issues
to maintain social control and solve problems (Wandersman & Florin,
2000). Collective efficacy is a broad term and can be conceptualized as
both a neighborhood and organizational process. Neighborhood collective
efficacy is defined as the connection of mutual trust and social
cohesion along with shared expectations for intervening in support of
neighborhood social control (Sampson & Raudenbush, 1999).
Organizational collective efficacy is defined as an organization or
group's perception of its problem-solving skills and its ability to
improve the lives its members (Pecukonis & Wenocur, 1994). While
there is considerable research demonstrating the positive effects of
neighborhood collective efficacy on neighborhood conditions, including
crime and safety (Sampson, Morenoff & Gannon-Rowley, 2002; Sampson
& Groves, 1989; Rankin & Quane, 2002), less is know about the
connection between citizen participation and neighborhood and
organizational collective efficacy (Chavis, Florin, Rich &
Wandersman, 1987; Perkins, Brown & Taylor, 1996; Sampson &
Raudenbush, 1997).
This study examines whether the active involvement of residents in
grassroots neighborhood organizations is related to perceptions of
neighborhood and organizational collective efficacy among residents in
poor communities. It helps to fill a gap in current research by
analyzing citizen participation as a potential social mechanism
contributing to collective efficacy. The results of the current study
will help to support social workers and other community practitioners
understand how to more effectively facilitate citizen participation in
ways that enhance collective efficacy in poor communities.
Theoretical Framework and Prior Research
A major goal of social work practice has been empowering
individuals to promote feelings of self-esteem, efficacy, and competency in individuals, organizations, and communities (Itzhaky & York,
2002). Social workers engage residents in neighborhood organizations to
enhance their individual
psychosocial well-being as well as their collective capacity to
strengthen the systems in which they reside, particularly their often
difficult neighborhoods (Checkoway, 2001). Social work practice in poor
communities has been informed by theories self efficacy, and more
recently collective efficacy. Theories of collective efficacy build on
and are closely related to Bandura's (1982) theory of individual
self efficacy, which explored an individual's belief in or
self-judgment about his or her capabilities to organize and execute
actions necessary to achieve desired goals. Bandura's (1989) theory
of self efficacy suggests that residents who have strong beliefs in
their capabilities approach potential stressors with the assurance that
they can exercise some control over them, including addressing the
problems often found in poor neighborhoods. Theories of self and
collective efficacy help social workers understand the relationship
between residents' perceptions of their individual and collective
abilities and their involvement in neighborhood organizations.
Neighborhood Collective Efficacy
Sampson and Raudenbush (1999) propose an analogy between individual
self efficacy and neighborhood efficacy in that both refer to the
capacity for achieving an intended effect; however, at the neighborhood
level, the shared willingness of local residents to intervene for the
common good depends on conditions of mutual trust and cohesion among
residents. Sampson and Raudenbush also argue that residents are not
likely to take action in neighborhoods where people mistrust each other
and the rules are unclear. Collective efficacy, therefore, is "the
linkage of cohesion and mutual trust with shared expectations for
intervening in support of neighborhood social control" (Sampson
& Raudenbush, pp. 612-613). Sampson (2004[b]) explains that just as
self efficacy is situated relative to a particular task, collective
efficacy also takes place relative to specific tasks, including
maintaining public order. Furthermore, the key causal mechanism in
collective efficacy theory is social control, which is acted upon under
conditions of social trust (Sampson).
Prior research demonstrates the positive effects of neighborhood
collective efficacy, including social control and trust, in poor
communities. An early study by Sampson and Groves (1989) found that
aspects of neighborhood social organization, including high levels of
local participation in organizations, expectations for informal social
control, the ability of residents to guide the behavior of others toward
prosocial norms, mutual support for children, and the density of local
friendship networks worked against criminal deviance. In their
comparative longitudinal study of Chicago neighborhoods, Sampson,
Raudenbush, and Earls (1997) found that neighborhood collective efficacy
was linked to reduced violence and delinquency. Rankin and Quane (2002)
found that youth were more likely to form positive peer attachments in
cohesive neighborhoods with high levels of neighborhood collective
efficacy where parents shared responsibility for social control.
Finally, Elliott and colleagues (1996) showed that the effects of
neighborhood disadvantage on the developmental outcomes of adolescents
were largely mediated by the level and form of neighborhood
organization. They found that higher levels of informal control in a
neighborhood (i.e. respect for authority, social control, mutual
respect, neighborhood satisfaction and bonding) resulted in lower
adolescent behavioral problems and association with delinquent youth,
and higher personal efficacy and educational expectations (Elliott,
Huizinga, Sampson, Elliott & Rankin).
Organizational Collective Efficacy
Pecukonis and Wenocur (1994) define organizational collective
efficacy as an organization or group's perception of its
problem-solving skills and its ability to improve the lives of its
members. They argue that efficacy embraced by a collective
"provides a unique structural arrangement that allows individuals
with common needs to combine and maximize their efforts toward a common
end" (Pecukonis & Wenocur, p. 14). A key component of
collective efficacy is shared beliefs about a group's collective
power to produce desired results (Bandura, 2001). The willingness of
members of a community organization to engage in challenging activities,
such as addressing decaying housing or crime, is positively associated
with their perceptions of their problem-solving skills and their ability
to produce positive outcomes for the community (Pecukonis &
Wenocur). Therefore, the perceived efficacy of collective action is
important for maintaining as well as initiating citizen participation in
community organizations (Perkins & Long, 2002).
Citizen Participation and Collective Efficacy
There is small but growing body of research demonstrating the
relationship between citizen participation in various types of community
organizations and neighborhood and organizational collective efficacy.
Chavis and his colleagues (1987) found that block association members
were significantly more likely than non-members to have expectations of
collective efficacy (i.e., defined as thinking that they can solve
problems by working collectively and expecting residents to intervene to
maintain social control). Moreover, members of block associations were
also significantly more likely to engage in collective (as opposed to
individual) anti-crime efforts than non-members. Sampson (1997) found
that neighborhood collective efficacy was significantly and positively
associated with organizational participation, along with friendship and
kinship ties and the presence of neighborhood services. Finally,
Perkins, Brown, and Taylor (1996) found that perceived organizational
collective efficacy/civic responsibility and community attachments were
consistently and positively related to participation in grassroots
community organizations at both the individual and block levels of
analysis.
The above studies indicate a relationship between citizen
participation in block associations and neighborhood collective
efficacy, organizational participation and neighborhood collective
efficacy, and participation in grassroots community organizations and
organizational collective efficacy. Similar to Perkins et al. (1996),
this study examines citizen participation in grassroots neighborhood and
community organizations. This study adds to existing research by
examining citizen participation as a social mechanism through which both
neighborhood and organizational collective efficacy are facilitated in
poor communities.
Methods
Procedures
This study utilized a cross-sectional design to survey members and
participants of nonprofit neighborhood organizations located in four
different neighborhoods in metropolitan Pittsburgh. All four
neighborhood organizations were located in poverty areas, defined as by
the U.S. Census Bureau as census tracts where 20% or more of the
residents are poor (Bishaw, 2005). The overall purpose of these four
neighborhood organizations was to improve problematic conditions, and
influence policies and programs that affect the quality of life in the
neighborhood. All four neighborhood organizations had locally controlled
boards (i.e., composed of residents and community stakeholders) and a
membership base of at least 50 to 100 members. These organizations
worked to improve the conditions in their neighborhoods through various
community initiatives, including beautification projects, community
planning, social and recreational activities, community newspapers,
affordable housing, business and economic development, crime prevention
and safety, youth development, leadership development, and residential
block organizing.
A non-random sampling procedure was utilized in which all potential
resident members and participants of the four neighborhood organizations
were asked to fill out the survey. The survey was distributed door to
door, at organizational meetings, and through the mail to 231 resident
members and participants of the neighborhood organizations targeted for
this study. The overall response rate was 54%, with a total of 124
respondents from the four neighborhood organizations who completed the
survey. The response rates from each of the four neighborhood
organizations individually were 39%, 51%, 53%, and 72%. The most
effective data collection method was door-to-door (76% response rate),
followed by organizational meetings (62% response rate), and then
through the mail (26% response rate). Surveys were mailed to potential
respondents only after they were not accessible at organizational
meetings or by going door-to-door to their homes.
Sample Demographics
All of the respondents were residents of poverty areas, with the
poverty rates in the four neighborhoods ranging from 24% to 38% in 1999
(USCSUR, 2002). In other words, all of the respondents, whether or not
they were poor themselves, resided in poverty areas. As indicated below,
approximately one quarter of the survey respondents had either poverty
or near poverty level incomes.
Because this study was completed in 2004, it uses the poverty
thresholds for that year. The 2004 poverty threshold for a two-person
household was $12,334, and for a two-person household with one child it
ranged from $12,971 [65 years and older] to $13,020 [under 65 years old]
(U.S. Census Bureau, 2004). The average household size for survey
respondents was 2.3 persons. Overall, 8% of survey respondents had
poverty level incomes at $10,000 or less a year, and 16% had very low
incomes between $10,001 and $20,000 a year. Based on the survey
questions in the current study it is not possible to determine exactly
which respondents fall under the 2004 poverty thresholds; however, the
data indicate that 24% of respondents had poverty or near poverty level
incomes. Among the remaining respondents, 24% earned between $20,001 and
$35,000, 15% earned between $35,001 and $50,000, and 35% had incomes
over $50,000 a year.
More than half (59%) of the survey respondents were Caucasian, and
39% were African American. Sixty-two percent were female, and almost all
respondents were registered voters (97%). The average age of respondents
was 58 years old, and 41% were over the age of 65, which may help to
explain the fairly large percentage of respondents who were also retired
(40%). Another 40% were employed full-time. The majority of survey
respondents were homeowners (81%); however, the value of their homes was
quite low, with almost half (48%) reporting that their homes were valued
at $50,000 or less. Furthermore, respondents were very stable residents,
having lived in their neighborhoods for an average of 34 years. Almost
half of the respondents were married (49%), and the average household
size was 2.3. The majority of respondents had some form of higher
education, with 32% having a graduate or professional degree, 18% a
college degree, and 25% some college. About a quarter of respondents had
a high school degree (19%) or less (6%).
Measures
The survey instrument was seven pages and included and/or adapted
the following scales which have been used in prior studies to explore
neighborhood collective efficacy, organizational collective efficacy,
and participation in neighborhood organizations. Please see the Appendix
for a list of the items included in the measures in the current study.
Neighborhood Collective Efficacy. Neighborhood collective efficacy
was measured using a scale developed by Sampson and Raudenbush (1999) in
their study of Chicago neighborhoods. The neighborhood collective
efficacy scale combined two subscales. The 5-item informal social
control subscale asked residents the likelihood, on a scale from I to 5,
1 meaning "very unlikely" to 5 meaning "very
likely," that their neighbors can be counted on to do something if:
"children were skipping school and hanging out on a street
corner," and "the fire station closest to their home was
threatened with budget cuts." The social cohesion/trust subscale
contained 4 conceptually related items that asked residents how strongly
they agreed on a scale from I to 5, 1 meaning "strongly
disagree" to 5 meaning "strongly agree," with the several
statements including: "People around here are willing to help their
neighbors," and "This is a close-knit neighborhood." The
reliability for the 9-item neighborhood collective efficacy scale in the
current study was .85.
Organizational Collective Efficacy. The measure for organizational
collective efficacy adapted a scale developed by Perkins and Long (2002)
in their study of block associations in New York City. The 8-item scale
in the current study asked respondents how likely on a scale from 1 to
5, 1 meaning "very unlikely" to 5 meaning "very
likely" that their neighborhood organization could accomplish
several goals, including: "Improve physical conditions in the
neighborhood like cleanliness or housing upkeep," "Get people
in the neighborhood to help each other more," "Reduce crime in
the neighborhood," and "Develop and implement solutions to
neighborhood problems." The reliability for the organizational
collective efficacy scale in the current study was .99.
Citizen Participation in Neighborhood Organizations. Two measures
were used in the current study: participation level and participation in
decision making. The scale measuring participation level was adapted
from the following three studies: York's (1990) 3-item
organizational participation scale; Perkins and Long's (2002)
8-item citizen participation index; and additional items developed by
Perkins and his colleagues (1990). In the current study, respondents
were asked, on a scale from I to 5, 1 meaning "never" to 5
meaning "often," how often in the past year they had
participated in various organizational activities and functions,
including attending meetings, actively participating in discussions,
working for the organization outside of meetings, serving as a member of
a committee, serving as an officer or as a committee chair, recruiting
new members, and serving as a representative of the organization to
other community groups. The reliability of the 11-item participation
level scale in the current study was .95.
Itzhaky and York's (2000) scale measuring participation in
decision making was used in the current study. Respondents were asked to
indicate how involved they were in the neighborhood organization by
checking one of the following items: (1) I take no part at all; (2) I
play a passive role; (3) I participate in relaying information; (4) I
carry out various tasks at the instruction of the staff and/or board
(note: this study added "and/or board" to this item); (5) I
participate partially in planning, decision making and implementation;
and (6) I am a full partner in planning, decision making and
implementation.
Results
Descriptive statistics were used to generate the means, medians,
standard deviations, and skewness for the key variables in the study.
Bivariate correlations were used to analyze the relationships among the
key study variables. Hierarchical multiple regression analyses were used
to examine the relationship between the citizen participation and
collective efficacy measures, controlling for neighborhood organization,
race, age, and education.
Descriptive Statistics
Table 1 displays the descriptive statistics for the key variables
in the current study.
The mean for neighborhood collective efficacy in the current study
was 3.36, and the mean for organizational collective efficacy was 3.74
(on a scale from 1 to 5). The organizational collective efficacy scale
was negatively skewed, and was transformed by squaring it. The
descriptive results demonstrate that respondents had fairly neutral
views about their neighborhoods' collective efficacy, and more
positive views regarding the collective efficacy of their neighborhood
organization.
Respondents' level of participation in their neighborhood
organization was 2.99 on a scale from 1 to 5, signifying that
respondents were engaged in the organization at a moderate level. The
mean for participation in decision making was 3.53 on a scale from I to
6, indicating that respondents also participated in decision making at a
moderate level, from relaying information to carrying out various tasks
at the instruction of the staff and/or board.
Collective Efficacy and Participation in Neighborhood Organizations
Bivariate results. Table 2 displays the results from the bivariate
analyses.
Participation level was not significantly associated with
neighborhood collective efficacy [r (117) = .16, p = .09], but it was
significantly associated with organizational collective efficacy [r
(117) = .31, p < .01]. Furthermore, participation in decision making
was not significantly associated with neighborhood collective efficacy
[r (113) = .11, p = .25], but it was significantly associated with
organizational collective efficacy [r (113) = .26, p < .01]. The
results also demonstrate that neighborhood and organizational collective
efficacy were also significantly correlated with each other [r (116) =
.50, p < .01].
Multivariate Results. Hierarchical multiple regression was
conducted to analyze the relationship between citizen participation in
neighborhood organizations and both measures of collective efficacy,
controlling for neighborhood organization, race, age, and education. The
primary researcher controlled for neighborhood organization in the
multivariate analyses by creating three dummy variables representing the
four neighborhood organizations in the study, using one group as the
referent group.
The assumptions for conducting the multiple regression analyses
were also examined and met. No cases were eliminated, the examination of
the histograms revealed normal distributions for all of the analyses,
and examination of the residual plots revealed that the assumption of
linearity was also met. Furthermore, both the Tolerance and VIF statistics indicated that multicollinearity was not a problem in the
regression analyses.
Table 3 displays the results from the hierarchical multiple
regression (HMR) analyses.
The primary researcher examined whether or not participation level
and participation in decision making contributed to neighborhood or
organizational collective efficacy. For neighborhood collective
efficacy, R = .24, [R.sup.2.sub.adj] = -.02, F (8, 96) = .72, p = .67,
and for organizational collective efficacy, R = .41, [R.sup.2.sub.adj] =
.10, F (8, 96) = 2.39, p < .05, indicating that the model was not
significant for neighborhood collective efficacy, but was significant
for organizational collective efficacy. Furthermore, the [R.sup.2]
change for organizational collective efficacy was significant indicating
that participation level and participation in decision making as a block
significantly contributed to organizational collective efficacy, and the
amount of variance explained by this block was 10%. Upon review of the
coefficients, participation in decision making was not significant;
however, participation level was a significant individual contributor to
organizational collective efficacy ([beta] = .323, t (96) = 2.15, p <
.05).
Discussion
Summary and Discussion of Results
The results indicate that the more residents participated in their
neighborhood organization, the greater their level of organizational
collective efficacy, but not neighborhood collective efficacy. The
correlations demonstrated that the citizen participation measures (i.e.,
participation level and participation in decision making) were
significantly associated with organizational collective efficacy, but
not with neighborhood collective efficacy. The multivariate results
demonstrated that the citizen participation measures significantly
contributed to organizational collective efficacy, accounting for 10% of
the variance. Furthermore, participation level individually influenced
organizational collective efficacy; however, participation in decision
making did not.
The more residents were involved in various activities and
functions of their neighborhood organization, the greater their
perception of their neighborhood organizations' collective ability
to solve neighborhood problems, and get people in the neighborhood to
know one another and work together. Pinderhughes (1983) uses the
ecological framework to suggest that the powerlessness of individuals
and families living in poor communities can only be addressed through
empowerment strategies whereby residents can influence the external
environment to reduce destructive forces and work with systems outside
the family, including community organizations, to improve their
difficult and poor environments. Furthermore, in the current study,
residents' perceptions of their neighborhood organizations'
collective ability to solve problems was fairly high. As Bandura (1982)
points out, residents' perceptions of their collective abilities
can influence what they choose to do to address difficult problems, the
amount of effort they exert, and their staying power when their efforts
fail to produce intended results. In other words, when residents have a
greater sense of their own collective agency and power, they are more
likely to persevere as problems get more complex and difficult to solve.
Bandura (2001) also points out that a key component of collective
efficacy is shared beliefs about a groups' collective power to
produce desired results. It is important to note that in the current
study, there was a strong positive association between organizational
and neighborhood collective efficacy. In other words, the more positive
residents' perceptions of their organization's capacity to
produce intended results, the more positive their perceptions of their
neighborhood's capacity to intervene in support of neighborhood
social control. In the same study, Ohmer (2004) also found
residents' perceptions of their organization's actual
accomplishments and successes, particularly in achieving tangible
community improvements (e.g., increased safety, improved housing and
business conditions), influenced their perceptions of both neighborhood
and organizational collective efficacy. The more positive
residents' perceptions of their organization's actual
accomplishments in improving areas such as safety and housing, the more
positive their perceptions of their neighborhood and organization's
collective capacity to solve problems now and in the future. Therefore,
it is important for social workers to engage residents in ways that
develop their sense of collective efficacy, and their ability to make
tangible community improvements such as increasing neighborhood safety,
affordable housing and other resources.
The results indicating no relationship between citizen
participation and neighborhood collective efficacy are somewhat
disturbing, particularly given the linkage between neighborhood
collective efficacy and crime reduction (Sampson, Raudenbush &
Earls, 1997). There is limited research analyzing the social mechanisms
through which neighborhood collective efficacy is effectively
facilitated in poor communities. The prior studies discussed in this
article examined two forms of citizen participation, one which found
that participation in small scale block associations was associated with
neighborhood collective efficacy (i.e., see Chavis, et al., 1987), and
the other by Sampson and Raudenbush (1999) which found that
organizational participation was associated with neighborhood collective
efficacy. However, these studies did not examine the level or extent of
involvement in these organizations and whether or not increased
involvement led to increases in neighborhood collective efficacy. The
current study examined the frequency (i.e., participation level) and
extent (i.e., participation in decision making) of involvement in
neighborhood organizations and neighborhood collective efficacy.
Neighborhood collective efficacy is a fairly new concept in social work
and has not been studied extensively. Because of its importance in
reducing crime and violence (Sampson, et al., 1997), social work
practitioners and researchers should continue to develop and examine
strategies for facilitating neighborhood collective efficacy in poor
communities. Potential social work practice and research strategies for
facilitating and analyzing collective efficacy are discussed below.
Implications for Social Work Practice
The results of the current study demonstrate the importance of
engaging residents in local neighborhood organizations to help them
develop the confidence that they can address difficult neighborhood
problems through organized collective action. Social work and community
development practitioners have developed clear and deliberate strategies
for building the capacity of neighborhood and community organizations
and fostering a sense of organizational collective efficacy among
residents who are actively involvement in such organizations (i.e., see
Chaskin, et al., 2001; Checkoway, 2001; Murphy & Cunningham, 2003;
Rothman, Erlich, & Tropman, 1995).
Facilitating neighborhood collective efficacy, on the other hand,
may require the exploration and development of different strategies that
specifically focus on building the kinds of relationships necessary for
social control to be activated. While residents may develop trusting
relationships and social networks with residents who are fellow members
of their neighborhood organization, they may not know other non-involved
residents, including neighbors on their own block. Furthermore,
practitioners have spoken of an "us against them" mentality that can develop in areas with strong neighborhood organizations, where
involved residents see themselves as the solution and non-involved
residents are viewed as part of the problem. Social workers and other
community practitioners, therefore, need to focus on strategies that
facilitate social networks and build trust among residents and their
neighbors, whether or not they are involved in the local neighborhood
organization. Practitioners need to help involved residents build
bridges to non-involved residents and to see noninvolved residents as
valuable when they support the goals of mutual trust and social cohesion
along with shared expectations for intervening in support of
neighborhood social control. For example, Sampson (2004[a]) has said
crime reduction can be as simple as knowing the names of neighbors and
their children.
Sampson (2004[b]) also points out that trusting relationships and
social networks among residents help to foster the conditions under
which collective efficacy may develop; however, they are not sufficient
for social control to be exercised. These relationships and networks
must be acted on to be "ultimately meaningful" (Sampson,
2004[b], p. 108). Therefore, community-based strategies must provide
residents with opportunities to activate social networks and trusting
relationships so that residents feel they can intervene when local youth
are hanging out on street corners, or when public services are cut, such
as a fire station closing on their street.
Facilitating both organizational and neighborhood collective
efficacy and capacity are essential to helping residents address
difficult conditions in poor neighborhoods. Sampson (2004[b]) argues
that strong neighborhood organizations are able to foster collective
efficacy through their capacity for social action and their ability to
connect and collaborate with other organizations in the neighborhood to
address issues, such as garbage removal and school improvements. In
fact, a community's capacity to solve problems is directly related
to the individual capabilities of community residents, as well as the
connections to and commerce with external systems of which the community
is a part (Chaskin, et al., 2001). Furthermore, community capacity
operates through the agency of individuals, organizations, and networks
of relations designed to perform particular functions that enable a
community to perform successfully (Chaskin, et al., 2001).
Local neighborhood organizations are a potential vehicle through
which social workers can build community capacity and facilitate
neighborhood and organizational collective efficacy. However, deliberate
strategies must be incorporated into the organization's overall
agenda to build relationships among neighbors, develop strong
organizations capable of addressing community-wide issues, and
facilitate trust and social control among neighbors, including those not
currently involved in the organization. For example, building
leadership, using community organizing to engage residents and key
external resources, and fostering collaboration among community
organizations can help facilitate strong neighborhood organizations and
build community capacity (Chaskin, et al., 2001).
Neighborhood organizations could also sponsor block-level
activities to build connections with and among neighbors, including
block-level organizing, crime watch groups and projects which help
residents turn vacant lots into community gardens. For example, in the
Kansas City Building Blocks program, community development corporations
hired community organizers to work block-by-block to generate commitment
and nurture relationships with and among residents (Kansas City LISC,
n.d.). The community organizers assisted residents in creating a vision/
collaborative plan for their block, and developing projects to make that
vision a reality, including forming crime watch groups, shutting down
crack houses, developing community gardens, and rehabilitating
dilapidated housing. Jeff Spivak (1997) reported in the Kansas City Star
that the program helped to "revive relationships like those in
bygone days when neighbors looked after each other, before drug dealing
and gunfire drove them off their front porches" (p. All). It is
important for social workers to incorporate block-level relationship and
capacity building strategies into community-based efforts to facilitate
neighborhood collective efficacy in poor communities.
Limitations of the Current Study
While the results of the current study contribute to the
understanding of citizen participation and collective efficacy, there
are several limitations. Prior studies on neighborhood collective
efficacy have used more sophisticated research designs, including the
use of nested designs and hierarchical linear modeling where individuals
are nested within ecologically defined groups, such as neighborhoods and
structural characteristics, such as poverty, are expressed as
aggregate-level measures (Sampson, et al., 2002). Nested designs allow
the explicit modeling of the variation between and within groups (i.e.,
neighborhoods or organizations) (Coulton, Korbin & Su, 1999). The
current study is limited to the analysis of the perceptions of
individuals, and the data was not analyzed at the organizational and/or
neighborhood level.
Another weakness of the current study is that it used a
cross-sectional design. Cross-sectional studies have limited internal
validity, thereby affecting the confidence that the results of a study
accurately depict a causal relationship (Rubin & Babbie, 2001). One
of the ways that researchers attempt to improve internal validity is by
"attempting to rule out the plausibility of rival hypotheses by
controlling for alternative variables through multivariate
analyses" (Rubin & Babbie, 2001, p. 323). Therefore, the
primary researcher for the current study controlled for several
variables (i.e., demographics and neighborhood organization) in the
multivariate analyses that could also have influenced the key study
variables.
While the high response rate in the current study allows the
participating organizations to generalize their findings to their entire
membership, the findings are not generalizable beyond the study
population. However, similar types of neighborhood organizations working
in poor communities in urban areas may use the results as a benchmark
for measuring citizen participation and collective efficacy in their own
organizations. A major strength of the current study is the reliability
of the measures, which can be used in future studies analyzing citizen
participation and collective efficacy in poor communities.
Implications for Future Research
While the results of the current study did not demonstrate a
relationship between participation in neighborhood organizations and
neighborhood collective efficacy, future studies could examine other
forms of citizen participation to determine if they contribute to
developing mutual trust/social cohesion and social control in poor
communities. For example, future research could examine the impact of
social work interventions on the development of neighborhood collective
efficacy in poor communities, and individual and community level
outcomes, such as crime and delinquency. Social work practitioners and
researchers could explore, develop and implement community-based
strategies that may be particularly effective in facilitating
neighborhood collective efficacy such as the block level organizing
program described above. Researchers could simultaneously analyze
whether or not neighborhood collective efficacy developed through these
strategies influences community level outcomes such as crime and
disorder.
In summary, the current study adds to the existing quantitative
research on community practice by analyzing the relationship between
citizen participation in neighborhood organizations and neighborhood and
organizational collective efficacy in poor communities. The results can
help social work and other community practitioners and researchers as
they develop and analyze strategies to build collective efficacy in poor
communities. The results of this study may also be useful in
understanding how social work strategies might facilitate collective
efficacy and affect individual and community level outcomes.
Appendix
Measures Used in the Current Study
Neighborhood Collective Efficacy
(a) Informal social control: Scale: from I (very unlikely) to 5
(very likely). The following are things people in your neighborhood
might try to do. For each one, indicate how likely your neighbors could
be counted on to do something if...
1. children were skipping school and hanging out on a street corner
2. children were spray painting graffiti on a local building
3. children were showing disrespect to an adult
4. a fight broke out in front of their house
5. the fire station closest to their home was threatened with
budget cuts
(b) Social cohesion/trust. Scale: from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5
(strongly agree). Please indicate how strongly you agree or disagree
with each of the statements below:
1. People around here are willing to help their neighbors
2. This is a close-knit neighborhood
3. People in this neighborhood generally don't get along with
each other
4. People in this neighborhood do not share the same values
Organizational Collective Efficacy
Scale: from 1 (very unlikely) to 5 (very likely). The following are
things a neighborhood organization might try to do. For each one,
indicate how likely it is that (name of neighborhood organization) can
accomplish that goal.
1. Improve physical conditions in the neighborhood like cleanliness
or housing upkeep
2. Get people in the neighborhood to help each other more
3. Persuade the city to provide better services to people in the
neighborhood
4. Reduce crime in the neighborhood
5. Get people who live in the neighborhood to know each other
6. Increase decent, affordable housing in the neighborhood
7. Improve the business district in the neighborhood
8. Develop and implement solutions to neighborhood problems
Citizen Participation in Neighborhood Organizations
Participation Level: Scale: from 1 (Never) to 5 (Often). We would
like to know what kinds of things people have done with (name of
neighborhood organization). In the past year, how often have you ...
1. Attended organizational functions and activities
2. Actively participated in discussions
3. Attended meetings of the organization
4. Done work for the organization outside of meetings
5. Served as a member of a committee
6. Served as an officer or as a committee chair
7. Helped organize activities (other than meetings)
8. Tried to recruit new members
9. Tried to get people out for meetings and activities
10. Served as a representative of the organization to other
community groups
11. Worked on other activities for the organization
Participation in Decision Making. How involved are you in (name of
neighborhood organization)? (Check One)
1. I take no part at all
2. I play a passive role
3. I participate in relaying information
4. I carry out various tasks at the instruction of the staff and/or
board
5. I participate partially in planning, decision making and
implementation
6. I am a full partner in planning, decision making and
implementation
References
Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency.
American Psychologist, 37, 122-147.
Bandura, A. (1989). Regulation of Cognitive Processes through
Perceived Self-Efficacy. Developmental Psychology, 25(5), 729-735.
Bandura, A. (2001). Guide for Constructing Self-Efficacy Scales.
Stanford University. Unpublished manuscript.
Bishaw, A. (2005). Areas of Concentrated Poverty: 1999. U.S.
Department of Commerce: Economics and Statistics Administration, U.S.
Census Bureau.
Chaskin, R.J., Brown, P., Venkatesh, S., and Vidal, A. (2001)
Building Community Capacity. New York, NY: Aldine De Gruyter.
Chavis, D.M., Florin, P., Rich, P.R., & Wandersman, A. (1987).
The role of block associations in crime control and community
development: the Block Booster Project. Final Report to the Ford
Foundation. New York: Citizens Committee for New York City.
Checkoway, Barry. (2001). Core Concepts for Community Change. In
Tropman, J., Erlich, J., and Rothman, J. (eds.), Tactics and Techniques
of Community Intervention. Itasca, IL: Peacock Publishers.
Coulton, C., Korbin, J., & Su, M. (1999). Neighborhoods and
Child Maltreatment: A Multi-Level Study. Child Abuse and Neglect,
23(11), 1019-1040.
Elliott, D., Wilson, Wo J., Huizinga, D., Sampson, R., Elliott, A.,
& Rankin, B. (1996). The Effects of Neighborhood Disadvantage on
Adolescent Development. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency,
33(4), 389-426.
Gamble, D., & Weil, M. (1995). Citizen Participation. In
Encyclopedia of Social Work, 19th Edition (pp. 483-494). Washington, DC:
NASW Press.
Itzhaky, H., & York, A. S. (2000). Empowerment and community
participation: Does gender make a difference? Social Work Research,
24(4), 225-234.
Itzhaky, H., & York, A. (2002). Showing Results in Community
Organization. Social Work, 47(2), 125-131.
Johnson, A. K. (1998). The Revitalization of Community Practice:
Characteristics, Competencies and Curricula for Community
Based-Services. Journal of Community Practice, 5(3), 37-62.
Kansas City Local Initiatives Support Corporation [LISC] (n.d.).
Kansas City Building Blocks: An approach to building physical and social
capital in neighborhoods.
Murphy, P., & Cunningham, J. (2003). Organizing for Community
Controlled Development: Renewing Civil Society. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications, Inc.
Ohmer, M. (2004). Citizen Participation and Its Effects in
Neighborhood Organizations: The Influence of Perceived Organizational
Characteristics and Effectiveness. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation.
University of Pittsburgh.
Pecukonis, E. V., & Wenocur, S. (1994). Perceptions of Self and
Collective Efficacy in Community Organization Theory and Practice,
Journal of Community Practice, 1(2), 5-21.
Perkins, D. D., Brown, B. B., & Taylor, R. B. (1996). The
ecology of empowerment: Predicting participation in community
organizations. Journal of Social Issues, 52, 85-110.
Perkins, D., Florin, P., Rich, R., Wandersman, A., & Chavis, D.
(1990). Participation and the social and physical environment of
residential blocks: Crime and community context. American Journal of
Community Psychology, 18, 83-115.
Perkins, D. D., & Long, D. A. (2002). Neighborhood Sense of
Community and Social Capital: A multi-level analysis. In A. Fisher, C.
Sonn & B. Bishop (Eds.), Psychological sense of community: Research,
applications, and implications (pp. 291-318). New York: Plenum.
Pinderhughes, E. (1983). Empowerment for our clients and for
ourselves. Social Casework, 64(6), 331-338.
Rankin, B. R., & Quane, J. M. (2002). Social Context and Urban
Adolescent Outcomes: The Interrelated Effects of Neighborhoods,
Families, and Peers of African-American Youth. Social Problems, 49(1),
79-100.
Rothman, J., Erlich, J., & Tropman, J. (Eds.) (1995).
Strategies of community intervention: Macro practice, Fifth Edition.
Itasca, IL: F.E. Peacock Publishers, Inc.
Rubin, A., & Babbie, E. (2001). Research Methods for Social
Work. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thompson Learning.
Sampson, R. (2004, December[a]). A Conversation with Robert
Sampson. A meeting sponsored by the United Way of Metropolitan Atlanta,
Atlanta, GA.
Sampson, R. (2004[b]). Neighbourhood and community: Collective
efficacy and community safety. New Economy, 11, 106-113.
Sampson, R., & Groves, W. (1989). Community structure and
crime: Testing social disorganization theory. American Journal of
Sociology, 94, 775-802.
Sampson, R. J., Morenoff, J. D., & Gannon-Rowley, T. (2002).
Assessing "Neighborhood Effects": Social Processes and New
Directions. Annual Review of Sociology, 28, 443-478.
Sampson, R. J., & Raudenbush, S. W. (1999). Systematic Social
Observation of Public Spaces: A New Look at Disorder in Urban
Neighborhoods. American Journal of Sociology, 105(3), 603-651.
Sampson, R. J., Raudenbush, S. W., & Earls, F. (1997).
Neighborhoods and Violent Crime: A Study of Collective Efficacy.
Science, 277, 918-924.
Schorr, L. (1997). Common Purpose: Strengthening Families and
Neighborhoods to Rebuild America. New York: Anchor Books, Doubleday.
Spivak, J. (1997, July 27). Sowing seeds of renewal: New strategy
strives to return beauty, pride to urban neighborhoods. Kansas City
Star, pp. A1, A11.
University Center for Social and Urban Research (UCSUR) (2002).
Socio-economic Data and Rankings for Pittsburgh Neighborhoods and
Allegheny County Municipalities: Census 2000 Social and Economic
Profiles. Retrieved on December 6, 2003 from:
http://www.ucsur.pitt.edu/CensusDataPage.htm.
U.S. Census Bureau (2004). U.S. Census Bureau, Poverty Thresholds
2004. Housing and Household Economic Statistics Division, Last Revised:
August 30, 2005.
Wandersman, A., & Florin, P. (2000). Citizen Participation and
Community Organizations. In Rappaport, J., & Seidman, E., eds.,
Handbook of Community Psychology. New York, NY: Kluwer Academic/Plenum
Publishers.
Weil, M. O. (1996). Community Building: Building Community
Practice. Social Work, 41 (5), 481-499).
York, A. S. (1990). Directive and non-directive approaches in
community social work. Journal of Social Work and Policy in Israel, 3,
169-177.
MARY OHMER
ELIZABETH BECK
School of Social Work
Georgia State University
Table 1
Descriptive Statistics for Key Study Variables
Variable N Mean Median
Citizen Participation:
Participation Level 121 2.99 3.10
Participation in
Decision Making 117 3.53 3.00
Collective Efficacy:
Neighborhood
Collective Efficacy 118 3.36 3.44
Organizational
Collective Efficacy 118 3.74 3.88
Variable SD Skewness
Citizen Participation:
Participation Level 1.23 .03
Participation in
Decision Making 1.66 .21
Collective Efficacy:
Neighborhood
Collective Efficacy 0.77 -.30
Organizational
Collective Efficacy 0.78 -.83/-.09 *
* Transformed variable measure
Table 2
Correlations among Citizen
Participation &
Collective Efficacy
Variable PL PDM NCE
Participation Level (PL)
Participation in Decision
Making (DM) .77 **
Neighborhood Collective
Efficacy (NCE) .16 .11
Organizational Collective
Efficacy (OCE) .31 ** .26 ** .50 **
* p < .05; ** p < .01; two tailed
Table 3
HMR for Citizen Participation and
Collective Efficacy Measures
[DELTA]
Variable B SE B [beta] t [R.sub.2]
Neighborhood
Collective
Efficacy:
Step 1 .00
Age -.02 .01 -.01 -.04
Education -.04 .07 -.O6 -.58
Race .01 .14 .01 .08
Step 2 .02
Group 1 .18 .21 .12 .83
Group 2 .30 .29 .12 .12
Group 3 .37 .30 .21 .21
Step 3 .04
Participation Level .11 .10 .18 1.14
Participation in
Decision Making .01 .08 .01 .08
Organizational
Collective
Efficacy:
Step 1 .04
Age .00 .01 -.01 -.11
Education .77 .45 .18 1.72
Race -.34 1.00 -.03 -.34
Step 2 .04
Group 1 2.25 1.47 .21 1.51
Group 2 2.37 2.04 .13 1.16
Group 3 3.70 2.10 .29 1.76
Step 3 .10 **
Participation Level 1.43 .66 .32 2.15 *
Participation in
Decision Making -.02 .51 .00 .00
* p <.05; ** p <.01
