ArticlePDF Available

Building an active citizenry: The role of neighborhood problems, readiness, and capacity for change


Abstract and Figures

Community-building initiatives strive to involve residents as the drivers of the change process, involving them in an array of activities including collective action efforts. Recent evaluations of many of these initiatives, however, suggest that developing the levels of resident involvement needed in such efforts is challenging. This study examines the neighborhood conditions that are related to whether and how much residents become involved in individual activism and collective action efforts. A random-digit-dial phone survey of 460 residents in 7 distressed neighborhoods suggested that while demographic variables were relatively unimportant, resident perceptions of neighborhood readiness (i.e., hope for the future and collective efficacy) and capacity for change (i.e., social ties and neighborhood leadership), and the level of neighborhood problems were strongly related to whether and how much residents were involved in individual and collective action efforts. Moreover, different elements of these neighborhood conditions were more or less important depending on the type and level of resident involvement. For example, while perceptions of neighborhood problems was the strongest predictor of whether an individual became involved at all, perceived strength of neighborhood leadership was the strongest predictor of an individual's level of activity. The implications of these findings for practitioners and scientists are discussed.
Content may be subject to copyright.
Building an active citizenry: the role of neighborhood problems,
readiness, and capacity for change
Pennie G. Foster-Fishman Æ Daniel Cantillon Æ
Steven J. Pierce Æ Laurie A. Van Egeren
Published online: 29 March 2007
Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2007
Abstract Community-building initiatives strive to
involve residents as the drivers of the change process,
involving them in an array of activities including col-
lective action efforts. Recent evaluations of many of
these initiatives, however, suggest that developing the
levels of resident involvement needed in such efforts is
challenging. This study examines the neighborhood
conditions that are related to whether and how much
residents become involved in individual activism and
collective action efforts. A random-digit-dial phone
survey of 460 residents in 7 distressed neighborhoods
suggested that while demographic variables were rel-
atively unimportant, resident perceptions of neigh-
borhood readiness (i.e., hope for the future and
collective efficacy) and capacity for change (i.e., social
ties and neighborhood leadership), and the level of
neighborhood problems were strongly related to whe-
ther and how much residents were involved in indi-
vidual and collective action efforts. Moreover,
different elements of these neighborhood conditions
were more or less important depending on the type and
level of resident involvement. For example, while
perceptions of neighborhood problems was the stron-
gest predictor of whether an individual became
involved at all, perceived strength of neighborhood
leadership was the strongest predictor of an individ-
ual’s level of activity. The implications of these findings
for practitioners and scientists are discussed.
Keywords Community building Community
capacity Community readiness Resident
participation Neighborhood leadership Collective
efficacy Social ties Neighborhood problems
Comprehensive community-building initiatives
) have become popular vehicles for addressing
significant social, health, and economic issues. Al-
though these initiatives vary greatly in their designs
and targeted outcomes, most strive to affect significant
social issues by focusing on problems at multiple levels
within the community, fostering partnerships between
and among neighborhood residents and local organi-
zations and institutions, engaging local residents in the
work, and building local capacity to resolve issues (see
Duran & Stagner, 1997, and Smock, 1997 for a more
complete description of CBIs). Some recent examples
of such efforts include the Annie E. Casey Founda-
tion’s Making Connections initiative and the United
Kingdom’s regeneration efforts such as the Health
Action Zones.
P. G. Foster-Fishman (&) S. J. Pierce
L. A. Van Egeren
Department of Psychology, Michigan State University,
125 D Psychology Building, East Lansing, MI 48824, USA
D. Cantillon
ICF International, 10530 Rosehaven Street, Ste. 400,
Fairfax, VA 22030, USA
Comprehensive community change initiatives have taken on a
variety of forms and names, including comprehensive community
initiatives (CCIs) and community-based participatory research
(CBPR). We refer to them as CBIs in this paper given the
emphasis of the initiative targeted in this paper and the prefer-
ences of the foundation funding this initiative.
Am J Community Psychol (2007) 39:91–106
DOI 10.1007/s10464-007-9097-0
A key tenet of these initiatives is that in order to
build a healthy community, an active citizenry base is
needed. In fact, these initiatives tend to emphasize
broad-based resident or grassroots involvement in
most, if not all, phases of the programming efforts
(Chaskin & Peters, 2000; Smock, 1997). For example,
in many of these efforts, residents (often in poor urban
neighborhoods) are treated as architects of and par-
ticipants in the change processes occurring in their own
neighborhoods. While residents can get involved in
these initiatives in a variety of ways, they typically
engage on three levels: (a) involvement in governance,
planning, decision-making, or design entities; (b) par-
ticipation in designing and implementing neighbor-
hood improvement projects or activities; and (3)
involvement in collective action or mobilization efforts
(e.g., Foster-Fishman, Nowell, Siebold, & Deacon,
This commitment to active resident involvement has
emerged for several reasons. First, by involving local
residents in the design and implementation of a com-
munity-based initiative, more effective solutions to
local issues can be identified because they will be de-
signed with consideration of local culture and concerns
and will build upon local assets (Fawcett et al., 1995;
Smock, 1997). Second, residents will be more likely to
accept the changes that unfold because they them-
selves have played a role in constructing change
(Duffy, 1991). Third, such collaborative approaches
can also serve to build the skilled, knowledgeable, and
active citizenry base needed to foster the creation of an
empowered, healthy community (Smock, 1997).
Overall, most initiatives pursue resident involvement
because it is deemed essential to revitalizing poor ur-
ban areas and creating sustainable change (Smock,
1997; Traynor, 2002). Moreover, regenerating resident
involvement in civic and neighborhood activities is
viewed as the ‘‘lifeblood of urban renewal’’ (Murphy &
Cunningham, 2003, p. 107).
However, CBI evaluations have often found that
eliciting and maintaining the desired level of resident
involvement is difficult (e.g., Chaskin & Peters, 2000;
Gray et al., 1997; Taylor, 1997; Traynor, 2002). In fact,
in their review of community-building efforts within
small cities similar to the one targeted in this study,
Murphy and Cunningham (2003) found that levels of
resident participation were often inadequate for pro-
moting serious resident mobilization and shifts in
existing power bases. These challenges to resident
participation in community-building initiatives occur
for several reasons. For example, residents who are
invited to participate in these efforts often live in
neighborhoods experiencing multiple, deeply
entrenched problems. These problems, coupled with
the neighborhood conditions they often foster (e.g.,
weak neighboring and social ties, low informal social
control, low collective efficacy), have been found to
have a detrimental impact on resident participation
(Chavis & Wandersman, 1990; Coulton, Korbin, Su, &
Chow, 1995; Ross & Jang, 2000; Sampson, Morenoff, &
Gannon-Rowley, 2002; Sampson, Raudenbush, &
Earls, 1997; Unger & Wandermann, 1983). In addition,
many of the neighborhoods targeted in CBIs have a
long history of commitments from ‘‘outsiders’’ that are
often not fulfilled. This history can reduce residents’
willingness to engage in new programs or opportunities.
The purpose of the current study was to examine the
conditions related to resident involvement in neigh-
borhood-based activities within the context of one
comprehensive community-building effort. In addition
to providing baseline data for the evaluation of this
CBI, the study was also designed to provide funders,
programming staff, and residents with insight into
those conditions that could be leveraged to foster res-
ident involvement within the initiative. Recognizing
the challenges CBIs face in promoting resident
involvement, we considered it useful to collect infor-
mation around existing forms of resident participation
in individual and collective change efforts across the
seven participating neighborhoods. An important goal
of the current study was to understand what contextual
factors were associated with existing levels of partici-
pation within targeted neighborhoods, with the hope
that such awareness could be used to design interven-
tions targeted at promoting greater resident involve-
ment within local neighborhood activities and larger
community-building efforts.
The role of context in resident involvement
While many community-building initiatives ultimately
work to shift community-wide policies and practices,
they often start their efforts at the local neighborhood
level, using a community-building framework to foster
the neighborhood conditions needed to encourage
active resident engagement (Kubisch et al., 2002).
Because the success of these initial neighborhood
efforts is a necessary step towards the goal of mobi-
lizing the community to shift broader policies and
procedures, it is important to understand how local
neighborhood conditions facilitate and constrain resi-
dent involvement.
In this study, three types of neighborhood conditions
and their relationship to resident involvement were
explored: neighborhood capacity, neighborhood
92 Am J Community Psychol (2007) 39:91–106
readiness, and neighborhood problems. The emphasis
on the first two conditions in this study came, in part,
from the increasing interest in how a neighborhood’s
capacity and readiness to change can support efforts to
promote increased resident involvement (Price &
Behrens, 2003). In brief, both capacity and readiness
refer to the conditions needed to support successful
community mobilization around a particular problem
(Goodman et al., 1998). Both frameworks have
become increasingly popular in recent years, particu-
larly among foundations and other funders who have
found them to be useful tools for identifying commu-
nity elements that should be developed to create more
compatible, supportive, and sustainable conditions for
the initiatives they pursue. For example, in the com-
prehensive community effort targeted in this study, the
key funder, the W. K. Kellogg Foundation, designed
the first phase of programming with an explicit focus
on understanding and building the targeted commu-
nity’s readiness and capacity to support the necessary
levels of resident involvement. This programming
emphasis seemed essential given the low levels of res-
ident involvement that had historically characterized
the neighborhoods targeted for this effort and the ini-
tiative’s goal to build a powerful resident base of active
citizens within the neighborhoods. As the evaluators
for this initiative, it was our hope that by assessing
neighborhood capacity and readiness prior to the start
of this effort, we could better understand the current
participation levels of residents as well as identify areas
to develop in the community-building effort.
Because both the community capacity and commu-
nity readiness frameworks include multi-faceted,
overlapping elements (i.e., Goodman et al.’s 1998
model of community capacity includes 12 factors; Tri-
Ethnic Center for Prevention Research’s Community
Readiness Model includes six dimensions [Plested,
Edwards, & Jumper-Thurman, 2003], and both models
include components of leadership and resources)
researchers or programmers using them to inform their
work are challenged to determine which dimensions
within each framework to emphasize as part of a par-
ticular project. For example, the critical components of
capacity or readiness for change may vary depending
upon the goals of the project and the community’s
context and history of working together to create
change. Because it is often neither practical nor
desirable to develop or measure all elements within
these frameworks, it becomes imperative to clarify
‘‘capacity and readiness for what and where?’’
Towards that end, we selected elements of capacity and
readiness that were appropriate to the targeted inter-
vention goals (i.e., research suggested they were critical
to resident involvement) and to the specific context
(i.e., key informants within the targeted community
identified them as relevant). In addition, though the
concepts of community capacity and readiness are very
similar, the current tendency in the literature to use
them somewhat interchangeably ‘‘minimizes important
differences that each contributes to the development of
community...initiatives’’ (Goodman et al., 1998,
p. 260). Below, we describe how we have distinguished
between community capacity and community readiness
and highlight those dimensions within each that were
targeted within our study.
Community capacity for change
The concept of community capacity has been utilized
to describe the extent to which a context has the
structures and processes in place to help mobilize res-
idents for action (Baker & Teaser-Polk, 1998; Good-
man et al., 1998). According to Chaskin (1999),
community capacity is ‘‘the interaction of human,
organization, and social capital existing within a given
community that can be leveraged to solve collective
problems and improve or maintain the well-being of
that community’’ (p. 4). Overall, most agree that
community capacity includes the knowledge, skills,
relationships, leadership, and resources present within
a community, and that when more capacity exists,
communities are better able to mobilize and support a
specific change effort (Baker & Teaser-Polk, 1998;
Garkovich, 1989; Goodman et al., 1998; Kubisch et al.,
2002; Norton, McLeroy, Burdine, Felix, & Dorsey,
2002). In fact, community capacity is recognized as so
essential to the success of comprehensive community
change efforts that most, if not all CBIs, include some
emphasis on building local capacity for change (e.g.,
Kubisch et al., 2002).
Because capacity is a complex, multi-dimensional
factor (Goodman et al., 1998; Norton et al.,
2002)—and thus difficult for any one initiative to tar-
get all of its elements—it is critical to emphasize those
components most essential to the goals of the targeted
change effort (Kubisch et al., 2002). For the purposes
We collected key informant information in two ways. First, the
first author participated in monthly meetings with W.K. Kellogg
Foundation staff, local community organizers, and community
development consultants who participated in this initiative. One
hour each month was dedicated in these meetings to evaluation
concerns, including identifying how to operationalize key con-
structs for measurement within this community. Second, focus
groups involving 140 adult and 90 youth residents in the seven
targeted neighborhoods were held prior to this data collection
and implementation of the initiative to learn how readiness and
capacity issues played themselves out in this community.
Am J Community Psychol (2007) 39:91–106 93
of this study, two elements of community capacity that
have been found to be particularly important for fos-
tering community mobilization and resident participa-
tion (and were emphasized in initial conversations with
key informants) were targeted: social networks and ties
and local leadership (Garkovich, 1989).
Social ties
Social ties refers to the type and extent of relational
interactions that exist within a neighborhood, such as
the extent to which neighbors socialize with each
other or exchange favors or resources. Social ties are
extremely important in developing trust and shared
norms among neighbors, developing a sense of com-
munity, exchanging important information, and
establishing informal social control (Cantillon,
Davidson, & Schweitzer, 2003; Caughy, Brodsky,
O’Campo, & Aronson, 2001; Elliott et al., 1996; Ku-
brin & Weitzer, 2003; Sampson et al., 2002). Social
ties within a neighborhood provide a critical mecha-
nism for connecting residents to their neighborhood
and fostering the social networks needed to engage
residents in change efforts and in collective action
(e.g., Chavis & Wandersman, 1990; Norton et al.,
2002; Perkins, Florin, Rich, Wandersman, & Chavis,
1990; Unger & Wandersman, 1985; Wandersman,
Florin, Friedmann, & Meier, 1987). In fact, Kieffer
(1984) found that individuals who became activists
initially possessed a strong sense of connection and
ties to their community.
Neighborhood leadership
Leadership is a critical tool for identifying local
issues, initiating action, and mobilizing residents to
respond to the work at hand (Norton et al., 2002).
Local leadership has been consistently identified as
an essential component of community capacity and is
central to the ability of a neighborhood to mobilize
for change (e.g., Chaskin & Peters, 2000; Easterling,
Gallagher, & Lodwick, 2003; Goodman et al., 1998).
Neighborhood leadership encompasses both repre-
sentatives of neighborhood-based formal organiza-
tions, such as faith-based institutions, and of informal
neighborhood-based groups, such as block groups or
neighborhood associations. The ability of neighbor-
hood leaders to gain access to resources both within
and external to the neighborhood is vital to the
success of any neighborhood or social change effort
(Gittell & Vidal, 1998; Mesch & Schwirian, 1996).
Community readiness for change
Community readiness generally refers to the degree to
which communities have accepted that change is nee-
ded and feasible and that the program or action that is
designed to address a problem will succeed (Donner-
meyer, Plested, Edwards, Oetting, & Littlethunder,
1997). Over the past decade, research has shown that
communities differ in their levels of readiness and that
communities with higher levels of readiness are much
more successful in planning, implementing, and sus-
taining community initiatives (e.g., Brackley et al.,
2003; Logan, Williams, & Leukefeld, 2001; Plested,
Smithman, Jumper-Thurman, Oetting, & Edwards,
While some readiness frameworks include elements
of community capacity, such as local leadership,
knowledge, and access to resources (Edwards, Jumper-
Thurman, Plested, Oetting, & Swanson, 2000; Oetting
et al., 1995; Oetting, Jumper-Thurman, Plested, &
Edwards, 2001; Plested et al., 1999), we have chosen to
distinguish readiness from capacity by framing readi-
ness as the overall belief in the possibility of change and
capacity as the local ability to implement change. Thus,
for the purposes of this study, readiness refers to the
degree to which a community believes that a change is
needed, feasible, and desirable (Armanakis, Harris, &
Mossholder, 1993) and was assessed through the con-
structs of collective efficacy and sense of hope for
Collective efficacy
An outgrowth of prior work on the importance of self-
efficacy (Bandura, 1986), the construct of collective
efficacy taps into the shared belief that neighborhood
residents have control over and can change important
community characteristics—that residents actions can
and will result in meaningful and positive community
change (Perkins & Long, 2002; Price & Behrens, 2003).
Since the intent of comprehensive community initia-
tives is to create positive neighborhood change via the
collective efforts of residents, assessment of the com-
munity’s belief in the efficacy of this approach to
change seems important. As with individual self-effi-
cacy, if the shared perception is that change is not
possible through collective action, residents are
unlikely to become involved in neighborhood
improvement and larger mobilization efforts.
Recent large-scale research has demonstrated the
vital importance of collective efficacy in community
life. In a seminal study, Sampson and colleagues (1997)
94 Am J Community Psychol (2007) 39:91–106
demonstrated that, controlling for neighborhood
structural characteristics, communities with higher
levels of collective efficacy experienced lower violence
rates. They defined collective efficacy as ‘‘social cohe-
sion among neighbors combined with their willingness
to intervene on behalf of the common good’’ (p. 918).
For the current study, given the focus on collective
action as a possible tool for community building within
the targeted initiative, we conceptualized collective
efficacy as ‘‘trust in the effectiveness of organized
community action’’ (Perkins & Long, 2002, p. 295).
This definition corresponds to Sampson, Morenoff, and
Earls (1999) extension of collective efficacy, where
emphasis was placed upon an individual’s sense of the
potential for active engagement among neighbors.
Hope for change
Another critical element in a neighborhood’s readiness
to change is the belief that change is even possible. In
fact, Kingsley and colleagues (1997), in their assess-
ment of other community-building efforts to address
poverty, noted that a central theme is ‘‘rebuilding
hope’’ (p. 13). Hope for positive change and a better
life is a critical motivational element and has been
found to be strongly linked to individuals taking action
to improve their lives (e.g., Hanna, 2002). Without the
hope that one’s life or neighborhood can actually get
better, it may appear useless to engage in change
pursuits or become involved in neighborhood activi-
ties. Within the context of this study, hope for change
focused on one belief that may be central in getting
residents involved in local neighborhood improvement
activities—the belief that their local block or neigh-
borhood can improve.
Neighborhood problems
The overwhelming majority of CBIs occur in neigh-
borhoods rife with significant problems, including
eroding physical conditions (e.g., vacant/dilapidated
housing) and high levels of social disorder (e.g., crime,
prostitution, and substance abuse). These problems can
affect desire and willingness to become involved in
community change efforts. For instance, in the case of
crime, one of the main reasons many residents do not
become involved is because they are afraid of retalia-
tion (Furstenberg, 1993; Korbin & Coulton, 1997).
Likewise, physical and social disorder in the local
neighborhood can promote withdrawal from commu-
nity life for residents, while at the same time these
incivilities are seen by criminals as marking potential
areas where crime will not be reported. In fact, broken
windows theory postulates that these signs of disorder
promote crime and subsequently further disorder in a
downward spiral of neighborhood decay (Wilson &
Kelling, 1982). However, neighborhood problems also
have the potential to motivate resident participation in
collective efforts to address these problems (Perkins
et al., 1990). For example, Peterson and Reid (2003)
found that awareness of neighborhood substance abuse
problems served as a catalyst for residents to become
engaged in neighborhood and other civic activities.
Similarly, Perkins and colleagues (1990) demonstrated
how awareness of neighborhood problems spurred
resident participation in voluntary organizations.
Thus, neighborhood problems can serve as both a
motivator and an inhibitor of individual activism and
collective action. Awareness of negative physical and
social conditions may result in fear of crime or retali-
ation and reduce citizen involvement (e.g., Skogan &
Maxfield, 1981); but such conditions can also provide
the impetus to act (Chavis & Wandersman, 1990). In
this study, we were interested in exploring how per-
ceived levels of neighborhood problems were related
to resident participation within the community.
Resident involvement in neighborhood efforts
In general, resident involvement within a neighbor-
hood can occur in a variety of forms (Smock, 1997).
Within the context of a community-building effort,
two types of indigenous resident involvement seem
particularly important: individual activism and indi-
vidual involvement in collective efforts. Individual
activism refers to the actions of individual residents
intended to express their concerns about specific
problems within a neighborhood to groups or key
decision-makers such as local politicians or neigh-
borhood leaders. Collective action refers to an indi-
vidual’s participation in collaborative resident efforts
to address issues or influence decision-making, such
as engagement in neighborhood block groups, citi-
zens’ committees, or neighborhood organizing efforts.
We chose to look at these two types of resident
involvement because both would be targeted for
development within this initiative; moreover, both are
central to developing an active citizenry and an
empowered neighborhood (Smock, 1997).
Overall, we were interested in which neighborhood
conditions were related to each type of participation.
For example, perceptions of collective efficacy may be
more strongly linked to engaging in collective action
than in individual activism, since the former involves
Am J Community Psychol (2007) 39:91–106 95
working with others to create change and may be
preceded by a belief that such collective efforts would
be effective. Identifying the different factors linked to
each form of participation could significantly help to
develop targeted programming efforts aimed at fos-
tering one form of participation or another.
A second area of focus in this study was how
neighborhood conditions are related to different levels
of participation within the community. As evaluators
of other CBIs have noted, resident participation in
these efforts is uneven (Chaskin & Peters, 2000). In
fact, practitioners in the community-building field are
often challenged in two ways when they strive to build
an active citizenry within the targeted community. The
first challenge is simply to get residents involved at all.
While it is neither practical nor necessary to have all
residents involved in these efforts (Chaskin & Peters,
2000), reaching a significant level of resident involve-
ment increases the likelihood that those participating
residents are representative of the community and that
a critical mass of participants has been developed to
promote resident power and deal with issues of attri-
tion and burnout.
A second challenge facing practitioners is the
difficulty of fostering and maintaining high levels of
involvement among residents who do become en-
gaged. While an initiative may succeed at generating
some level of participation within the local citizenry,
creating and sustaining high levels of resident
involvement often presents an even greater chal-
lenge. Yet the development of such highly engaged
residents is critical, because they often become for-
mal or informal leaders within their neighborhoods
or become champions for the change effort. Having
a large cadre of residents who are highly involved
also reduces the likelihood of resident burnout
because it reduces the burden of involvement on any
one individual.
In addition to the above practical considerations, we
believed that the processes and conditions that facili-
tate whether someone gets involved at all versus how
much someone becomes engaged in such activities
would be different and thus necessitated separate
inquiry. This belief is rooted in the stages of change
literature, particularly the Transtheoretical Model
of Change (e.g., DiClemente & Prochaska, 1982;
Prochaska, DiClemente, & Norcross, 1992) which
strongly suggests that individuals move through stages
of change as they shift their behavior (e.g., going from
inactive to active to very active) and that the condi-
tions and psychological processes that constitute each
stage and motivate individuals to move from one stage
to the next are quite distinct.
The current study
The current study assessed these three dimensions of
neighborhood conditions (e.g., neighborhood readi-
ness, capacity, and problems) and their relationships to
current levels of resident participation as part of a
baseline evaluation of a CBI. Specifically, we targeted
the following research questions:
1. What neighborhood conditions are related to
whether individuals are engaged? Are neighbor-
hood conditions differentially related to individual
activism as compared to collective action?
2. What neighborhood conditions are related to how
much individuals participate in individual activism
or collective action? More specifically, what factors
differentiate highly engaged residents from those
who are less involved?
Study context
This study was conducted as part of a broader evalu-
ation of a comprehensive community-building effort
called Yes we can! (YWC!) funded by the W.K.
Kellogg Foundation. The stated goals of YWC! were to
improve the economic and educational outcomes of
youth and families living within distressed neighbor-
hoods in the small city of Battle Creek, Michigan
(population ~53,000). Key to the theory of change
guiding the YWC! initiative was the belief that by
increasing levels of resident involvement in civic
activities and collective action, significant improve-
ments in local policies and practices could occur that
would result in reductions in racial inequities in edu-
cational and economic outcomes. The authors were
members of the team hired to evaluate YWC!
Seven distressed neighborhoods, defined as an ele-
mentary school catchment area, or ESCA, within the
city of Battle Creek were initially invited to partner
with the W.K. Kellogg Foundation on the YWC!
effort, in part because of the poor educational and
economic conditions that existed within them based on
public education records and 2000 U.S. census data.
For example, over half of the children attending ele-
mentary schools within the seven neighborhoods
scored below acceptable ranges on standardized tests,
and approximately three-quarters of the children
attending these schools qualified for free or reduced-
price lunch programs. Across the seven neighborhoods,
approximately 66% of the residents were Caucasian,
96 Am J Community Psychol (2007) 39:91–106
26% were African-American, and 7% were Hispanic.
The population for each of the seven neighborhoods
ranged from 1,930 to 4,500 people, with an average
population of 3,393.
The data presented in this study were part of our
initial baseline data collection effort and were collected
approximately one month prior to the launching of
YWC! within these seven neighborhoods. Because the
funder and local community practitioners desired
evaluation methods that were as unobtrusive as possi-
ble and because we needed to collect the baseline data
reported here within a six-week time frame, we elected
to conduct a random-digit-dial phone survey within the
targeted seven neighborhoods.
A criss-cross directory was utilized to randomly select
from the 3,301 households with phone numbers in the
seven neighborhoods. A total of 5,347 calls were made
to a random selection of these households. Of the 1,712
(52% of possible households) households reached,
30% agreed to participate (N = 509). Phone calls were
placed at various times during the day to ensure that
the variety of resident working schedules was accom-
modated. Households that could not be reached ini-
tially were called up to three times. Respondents who
completed surveys were provided with $10 grocery
store gift certificates to reimburse them for their time.
Missing data reduced the sample size to 460 resi-
dents. Table 1 presents the participants’ demographic
characteristics. Among these residents, the median
length of residence was 10 years, and 85% owned their
own homes. Sixty-eight percent of the participants
were females, 16% were African-American, 79% were
white, and 3% were Latino. Less than 1% were Asian
or Native American, and 1% endorsed multiple racial/
ethnic categories. Less than half (42%) of the sample
reported living in a household with children under age
Scale scores for each respondent were calculated as
follows: First, raw scale scores were computed by tak-
ing the mean across the scale items for respondents
who answered more than 80% of the items in the scale.
Neighborhood means were imputed and used to
replace missing raw scale scores for individuals who
answered fewer than 80% of the items in a scale.
Finally, raw scale scores were standardized to z-scores
to adjust for differing response categories across con-
structs. Unless otherwise noted, the standardized scale
scores were used for the continuous predictor variables
in the analyses reported here.
Several demographic variables were included in the
current analyses, including gender, race, residential
tenure, home ownership, and whether the household
had any children under 18 years old (i.e., parenthood).
Table 1 Demographic characteristics (N = 460)
Characteristics Total (%)
or M (SD)
Neighborhood Test statistic
(6) or
F(6, 453)
149 (32) 26 (41) 20 (38) 22 (33) 39 (27) 13 (36) 12 (21) 17 (42) 9.39
Female 311 (68) 38 (59) 33 (62) 44 (67) 105 (73) 23 (64) 44 (79) 24 (59)
African-American 72 (16) 10 (16) 7 (13) 5 (8) 4 (3) 5 (14) 28 (50) 13 (32) 79.71**
Other race/
388 (84) 54 (84) 46 (87) 61 (92) 140 (97) 31 (86) 28 (50) 28 (68)
Owner 389 (85) 49 (77) 40 (76) 58 (88) 132 (92) 31 (86) 47 (84) 32 (78) 14.03*
71 (15) 15 (23) 13 (25) 8 (12) 12 (8) 5 (14) 9 (16) 9 (22)
Parenthood (children under 18 in home)
Yes 195 (42) 30 (47) 18 (34) 26 (40) 59 (41) 21 (58) 17 (30) 24 (59) 13.87*
265 (58) 34 (53) 35 (66) 40 (61) 85 (59) 15 (42) 39 (70) 17 (42)
Residential tenure
15.7 (14.8) 12.8 (12.5) 14.3 (15.5) 16.6 (13.8) 17.8 (16.1) 10.6 (11.2) 18.0 (14.1) 13.9 (16.5) 2.11
* p < .05, ** p < .001
Reference category in all logistic regression models
Residential tenure was not standardized before use in the logistic regression analyses
Am J Community Psychol (2007) 39:91–106 97
These variables were included because previous
research has found that some demographic variables are
related to levels of participation, with more active citi-
zens often having a higher socioeconomic status (Cren-
son, 1983) and greater access to resources such as the
skills and time needed to participate (Verba, Schlozman,
& Brady, 1995). Residential tenure was a continuous
variable noted by the number of years the respondent
had lived at the current address; all others were coded as
dichotomous variables, with race categorized as either
African-American or non-African-American.
Community readiness measures
Collective efficacy
Residents were asked to rate their neighborhood’s
ability to collectively address neighborhood problems.
Items were rated on a 3-point Likert-type scale of no
control (1), some control (2), and a lot of control (3).
Two subscales, one describing collective efficacy
around neighborhood housing and social problems
(4 items, a = .74) and one describing collective efficacy
around crime (3 items, a = .90) were developed. Items
asked residents about their perception of the degree of
control that neighborhood residents, working together,
could have on addressing housing and social problems
(e.g., ‘‘improving the physical conditions of your
neighborhood’’) and crime problems (e.g., ‘‘reducing
drug dealing’’). The z-scores for the two subscales were
averaged to create the collective efficacy scale score.
To assess the extent to which residents were hopeful
that change was possible in their neighborhood, resi-
dents were asked to respond to the statement ‘‘In the
next year, I think that conditions on my block will
improve’’ on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from
strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5). This single-
item scale score was transformed into a z-score prior to
Community capacity measures
Neighborhood leadership
Three items measured neighborhood leadership
(a = .67) and asked about residents’ perceptions of
the quality of neighborhood leadership, neighbor-
hood organizations, and faith-based leadership (e.g.,
‘‘There is strong neighborhood leadership in my
neighborhood’’). Residents were asked to rate how
much they agreed that each statement accurately
portrayed the current conditions in their neighbor-
hood on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from
strongly agree to strongly disagree.
Social ties
The social ties scale had seven items (a = .76) that
described common interactions with neighbors such as
socializing, visiting, exchanging favors, and asking
advice (e.g., ‘‘People on my block socialize with each
other’’). Residents were asked to rate how much they
agreed (on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from
strongly agree to strongly disagree) that each statement
accurately portrayed the current conditions on their
Neighborhood problems
Residents were asked to describe the extent to which
their neighborhood experienced problems with hous-
ing and crime. Response categories were on a 5-point
Likert-type scale ranging from strongly agree to
strongly disagree. Neighborhood housing and related
problems contained five items (a = .77) that asked
about issues such as vacant/abandoned buildings and
lack of property and yard maintenance (e.g., ‘‘Vacant
or abandoned homes/buildings are a problem in my
neighborhood’’). Four items (a = .84) comprised the
neighborhood crime problem scale and asked about
crimes and social disorder such as vandalism, drug
problems, and ‘‘youth hanging out causing trouble.’’
The z-scores for these two problem subscales were
averaged (r
= .52, p £ .01) to create the neighborhood
problems scale score.
Dependent measures
Unlike the predictor variables described above, the
two dependent measures were not transformed to
z-scores. Instead, raw scale scores for these measures
were each recoded into dichotomous categories. For
one set of analyses, the categories represented whether
the individual had participated in individual activism or
collective action. Thus, the involved group consisted of
respondents who had participated in at least one
activist activity while the uninvolved group consisted of
respondents who had not participated in any activist
activities. In the second set of analyses, categories
represented the level of participation. In this latter
analysis, only respondents who had participated in at
98 Am J Community Psychol (2007) 39:91–106
least one activity were included (individual activism
n = 198, 43% of the total sample; collective action
n = 162, 35% of the total sample). Respondents who
had participated in a single activity were placed in the
low involvement group; respondents who had partici-
pated in multiple activities were placed in the high
involvement group.
Individual activism
Three items asked respondents whether (yes/no) they
or anyone in their family
had in the last year: (1)
Spoken to a local politician about a neighborhood
problem, (2) Talked to a group causing a problem in
the neighborhood, or (3) Talked to a local religious
leader or minister to help with a neighborhood prob-
lem or with neighborhood improvement. The number
of activities the respondent reported engaging in was
tallied and answers categorized according to the
guidelines above.
Collective action
Four items asked respondents whether (yes/no) they or
anyone in their family in the past two months had: (1)
Attended a neighborhood watch or block watch
meeting, (2) Attend a citizens’ committee or local
political group, (3) Attended a meeting of a block or
neighborhood group such as neighborhood partner-
ships, neighborhood planning councils, Weed and
Seed, etc., or (4) Gotten together with neighbors to do
something about a neighborhood problem or to orga-
nize neighborhood improvement. Many of the exam-
ples listed above, such as the citizens’ committee and
neighborhood partnerships, corresponded to citywide
groups active in the city. Based on the number of
collective action activities the respondent reported
engaging in, scores were computed according to the
guidelines above.
Baseline levels of neighborhood conditions and
resident participation
Table 2 shows descriptive statistics. In the overall
sample (N = 460), slightly less than half of the
respondents (43%) had participated in individual
activism, while only about one-third (35%) had par-
ticipated in collective action. Among the 198
respondents who had participated in individual
activism, 43% were in the high involvement group,
while 46% of the 162 respondents who had partici-
pated in collective action were in the high involve-
ment group.
Are neighborhood conditions related to whether
individuals participate?
A series of multiple logistic regression analyses were
conducted to examine the two research questions.
Results of preliminary cross-tabular analyses and
t-tests demonstrated that neighborhood of residence
was associated with the variables examined here (see
Tables 1, 2); therefore, neighborhood of residence was
included in the first step, demographic variables in the
second step, and the contextual variables in the final
step. However, after including the demographic cova-
riates in the initial logistic regression, neighborhood of
residence was no longer statistically significantly asso-
ciated with either dependent variable. Thus, neigh-
borhood of residence was ultimately removed from the
To examine the first research question, ‘‘What
neighborhood conditions are related to whether indi-
viduals participate in individual activism or collective
action?’’ two logistic regressions were conducted with
the neighborhood capacity, readiness, and problem
variables as predictors and individual activism and
collective action as the dependent variables. As shown
in Table 3, both models were statistically significant
(for individual activism, v
(10) = 79.34, p < .001; for
collective action, v
(10) = 97.28, p < .001).
Demographic variables were largely unimportant as
predictors; homeownership, residential tenure, and
gender were not associated with either individual or
neighborhood activism. Parenthood was a marginally
statistically significant (p = .056) predictor of partici-
pation in individual activism but was not statistically
significantly associated with collective action. Respon-
dents who had children were 1.54 times more likely to
be in involved in individual activism than were
respondents without children.
We chose to use logistic regression for this analysis due to the
skewed distribution of the continuous dependent variable. We
considered a variety of transformations (square root, inverse,
and natural log) that are often used to fix such violations of
assumptions, but none of them produced acceptable results.
Thus, we concluded that logistic regression technique was simply
better suited to analyzing the data. For that reason we dichoto-
mized the outcome variable as described.
Other work with this data, not included in this paper, assesses
geographic correlates of neighborhood readiness and capacity.
‘‘Anyone in your family’’ was included in the item stem to avoid
underestimating the level of resident activism present among the
set of households in the neighborhood.
Am J Community Psychol (2007) 39:91–106 99
Neighborhood problems was the strongest predictor
of both individual activism (p < .01) and collective
action (p < .01). The odds ratios in Table 3 show that
residents who were one unit above the mean on the
neighborhood problems scale were 2.49 times more
likely to have participated in individual activism and
2.11 times more likely to have participated in collective
action compared to residents who were at the mean.
Table 2 Descriptive statistics for dependent measures and contextual variables (N = 460)
Characteristics Total (%)
or M (SD)
Neighborhood Test statistic
(6) or
F(6, 453)
1 2345 6 7
Individual activism
262 (57) 31 (48) 28 (53) 31 (47) 102 (71) 17 (47) 32 (57) 21 (51 ) 18.20**
Yes 198 (43) 33 (52) 25 (47) 35 (53) 42 (29) 19 (53) 24 (43) 20 (49)
Low involvement
113 (57) 14 (42) 14 (56) 20 (57) 35 (83) 6 (32) 15 (63) 9 (45) 21.24**
High involvement 85 (43) 19 (58) 11 (44) 15 (43) 7 (17) 13 (68) 9 (38) 11 (55)
Collective action
298 (65) 36 (56) 26 (49) 43 (65) 107 (74) 21 (58) 39 (70) 26 (63) 14.79*
Yes 162 (35) 28 (44) 27 (51) 23 (35) 37 (26) 15 (42) 17 (30) 15 (37)
Low involvement
87 (54) 14 (50) 11 (41) 14 (61) 27 (73) 5 (33) 10 (59) 6 (40) 11.80
High involvement 75 (46) 14 (50) 16 (59) 9 (39) 10 (27) 10 (67) 7 (41) 9 (60)
Community readiness
Collective efficacy
.00 (.87) –.10 (.95) .16 (.90) .05 (.83) –.15 (.84) –.11 (1.00) .34 (.88) .00 (.66) 2.78*
Hope .01 (.98) –.04 (1.10) .03 (.95) –.05 (.99) –.05 (.92) –.10 (1.07) .08 (1.07) .31 (.87) 0.89
Community capacity
Neighborhood leadership –.01 (.99) .10 (1.01) .57 (.95) –.27 (.88) –.23 (.90) .04 (1.05) .13 (1.09) –.01 (.99) 5.57***
Social ties –.01 (.99) –.07 (1.01) .02 (.94) .00 (.99) .12 (.95) –.41 (1.02) –.02 (1.08) –.06 (.99) 1.48
Neighborhood problems
.01 (.88) .53 (.89) .12 (.78) .28 (.90) –.41 (.61) .50 (.96) –.42 (.80) .28 (.84) 18.72***
Note: Missing values for continuous predictors were imputed with neighborhood means, then scale and subscale scores were stan-
dardized prior to use
* p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001
Reference category in the uninvolved vs. involved logistic regression models
Reference category in the low vs. high involvement logistic regression models
Collective efficacy was the mean of the standardized form of two subscales
Neighborhood problems was the mean of the standardized form of two subscales
Table 3 Logistic regression models of individual activism and collective action (uninvolved vs. involved)
Predictor Individual activism
Collective action
Wald Odds-Ratio 95% CI Wald Odds-Ratio 95% CI
Constant 0.93 0.83 6.91 0.59
Homeownership (1 = yes) 1.43 1.45 0.79–2.65 0.04 0.94 0.50–1.75
Race (1 = African-American) 1.51 1.43 0.81–2.54 0.03 1.05 0.58–1.91
Residential tenure 0.21 1.00 0.98–1.01 0.99 0.99 0.97–1.01
Gender (1 = female) 1.70 0.74 0.48–1.16 1.03 0.79 0.49–1.25
Parenthood (1 = yes) 3.65 1.54 0.99–2.40 0.22 1.12 0.70–1.79
Neighborhood problems 43.17** 2.49 1.90–3.27 28.13** 2.11 1.60–2.77
Community readiness
Collective efficacy 2.44 1.22 0.95–1.57 9.46** 1.53 1.17–2.00
Hope 1.32 1.14 0.91–1.43 6.14* 1.38 1.07–1.77
Community capacity
Neighborhood leadership 3.02 1.22 0.97–1.54 5.93* 1.34 1.06–1.70
Social ties 11.86** 1.52 1.20–1.93 22.23** 1.86 1.44–2.41
= 79.34, df = 10, n = 460, p < .001, Nagelkerke R
= .21
= 97.28, df = 10, n = 460, p < .001, Nagelkerke R
= .26
* p < .05, ** p < .01
100 Am J Community Psychol (2007) 39:91–106
Thus, residents who reported higher levels of neigh-
borhood problems were more likely to engage in
neighborhood activism.
The results for readiness (measured by collective
efficacy and hope) and community capacity (measured
by neighborhood leadership and social ties) were
mixed. Social ties was associated with participation in
both types of neighborhood change efforts (p < .01).
Residents who were one unit above the mean on the
standardized social ties scale were 1.52 times more
likely to be involved in individual activism and
1.86 times more likely to be involved in collective
action compared to residents who were at the mean.
However, the remaining readiness and capacity vari-
ables were associated only with collective action. The
odds ratios for collective efficacy, hope, and neigh-
borhood leadership were 1.53, 1.38, and 1.34, respec-
tively, indicating that residents one unit above the
mean on each predictor were more likely to have
participated in collective action than residents who
scored at the mean on those scales.
In terms of classification accuracy, the model for
individual activism accurately classified 81.7%
(n = 214) of the uninvolved respondents and 51.5%
(n = 102) of the involved residents, yielding overall
accuracy of 68.7%. The proportional chance criterion
; see Hair, Anderson, Tatham, & Black, 1995,p.
204) is the percent of cases that would be accurately
classified by chance if predictions were made by ran-
domly assigning residents to the two outcome groups
with probabilities based on the actual size of the
groups. For this model, C
is 51.0%. Based on Hair
et al.’s suggested criterion (pp. 205–206) that a model’s
accuracy should be one-fourth greater than chance
before the model has reached an acceptable level of
predictive accuracy, the corresponding value is 63.7%
for this individual activism model. This suggests that
this model’s level of predictive accuracy is acceptable.
Cohen’s kappa (j), which measures agreement after
adjusting for chance, can be applied to the 2 · 2 clas-
sification accuracy table to provide a statistical signifi-
cance test. For the classification results associated with
the individual activism model, j = .34 (asymptotic
SE = .04, t = 7.52, p < .001), indicating that the logistic
model classifies respondents significantly better than
The collective action model accurately classified
88.3% (n = 263) of the uninvolved respondents and
47.5% (n = 77) of the involved respondents, yielding
an acceptable overall accuracy of 73.9% (C
54.4%; Hair et al.’s suggested criterion is 68.0% accu-
racy). For the classification results associated with
the collective action model, j = .385 (asymptotic
SE = .045, t = 8.54, p < .001), leading to the conclusion
that the logistic model classifies respondents signifi-
cantly better than chance.
Additional models investigating potential interac-
tions among the collective efficacy, neighborhood
leadership, hope, social ties, and neighborhood prob-
lems variables were statistically insignificant.
Are neighborhood conditions associated with level
of resident participation?
To examine the second research question, ‘‘What
neighborhood conditions are related to how much
individuals participate in individual activism or col-
lective action?’’ two additional logistic regressions
were conducted in which the sample was comprised
only of respondents who reported participating in at
least one activity. The categories within the dependent
variables represented low versus high involvement in
individual activism and collective action.
As shown in Table 4, the model for individual
activism was statistically significant, v
(10) = 24.71,
p < .01, as was the model for collective action,
(10) = 31.97, p < .001. No demographic variables
predicted individual activism. However, race was sta-
tistically significantly associated with collective action
(p < .05); African-American residents were 3.10 times
more likely to be in the high involvement group than
were residents who belonged to other racial and ethnic
Neighborhood problems were significantly associ-
ated with individual activism (odds ratio = 1.70,
p < .01,) but not with collective action (odds ra-
tio = 1.27, ns,), indicating that residents who perceived
higher levels of problems were more likely to be
involved in multiple individual activism activities.
As with the first research question, the results for
community readiness and community capacity were
mixed. Neighborhood leadership, a measure of capac-
ity, was statistically significantly associated with both
individual activism (odds ratio = 1.42, p < .05) and
collective action (odds ratio = 1.98, p < .01), indicating
that residents who reported higher levels of neighbor-
hood leadership were more likely to be in the high
involvement group regardless of the type of activism.
Hope, a measure of readiness, was statistically signifi-
cantly associated with individual activism (odds
ratio = 1.58, p < .05,) but not with collective action,
indicating that residents reporting more hope were
more likely to be in the high involvement group only
with respect to individual activism.
The individual activism model accurately classified
76.1% (n = 86) of the low involvement respondents
Am J Community Psychol (2007) 39:91–106 101
and 48.2% (n = 41) of the high involvement respon-
dents, yielding an acceptable overall accuracy of 64.1%
is 51.0%; Hair et al.’s suggested criterion is
63.7% accuracy). For the classification results associ-
ated with this model, j = .250 (asymptotic SE = .069,
t = 3.57, p < .001), indicating that the model classifies
respondents significantly better than chance.
The collective action model accurately classified
74.7% (n = 65) of the low involvement respondents
and 62.7% (n = 47) of the high involvement respon-
dents, yielding an acceptable overall accuracy of 69.1%
is 50.3%; Hair et al.’s suggested criterion is
62.8% accuracy). For the classification results associ-
ated with the collective action model, j = .376
(asymptotic SE = .073, t = 4.80, p < .001), indicating
that the model classifies respondents significantly bet-
ter than chance.
The findings from this study provide strong support
for one underlying premise of CBIs: Neighborhood
conditions matter and are significantly related to
whether and how much an individual engages in
individual or collective action. Overall, the residents
within our study were more likely to be engaged in
neighborhood activities when they perceived their
surrounding context as ready and able to support such
activity and when they noted higher levels of neigh-
borhood problems to address. Interestingly, we also
found that different elements of neighborhood
conditions seem to be more or less important for
different types and levels of resident involvement. For
example, while we found that perceptions of neigh-
borhood problems was the strongest predictor of
whether an individual became involved at all, we
found that perceived strength of neighborhood lead-
ership was one of the strongest predictors of how
active an individual was (low versus high involve-
ment). Similarly, we found that perceptions of
neighborhood readiness for change, including per-
ceived collective efficacy and hope for change, were
strongly related to whether respondents engaged in
collective action, yet were unrelated to whether they
were involved in individual activism. These results
provide evidence for the influence of contextual
variables on resident participation in community and
civic life. Overall, residents who recognized the state
of current problems, believed that neighborhood
efforts could help alleviate these problems, had ties
in the local community, and felt effective neighbor-
hood leadership was available were more likely to be
actively involved in neighborhood change efforts—
both through individual actions and collective efforts.
These findings are consistent with prior research
that has also found that residents who perceived
both neighborhood strengths (community capacity,
community readiness) and deficits (neighborhood
problems) were more likely to participate in neigh-
borhood change strategies (e.g., Perkins et al., 1990).
These findings also highlight that even within the
context of high levels of neighborhood problems,
significant levels of capacity can exist (Cook, Shagle,
& Degirmencioglu, 1997; Coulton, Korbin, & Su,
1996; Leventhal & Brooks-Gunn, 2000; Taylor, 1997).
Table 4 Logistic regression models of individual activism and collective action (low involvement vs. high involvement)
Predictor Individual activism
Collective action
Wald Odds-Ratio 95% CI Wald Odds-Ratio 95% CI
Constant 3.44 0.56 1.79 0.64
Homeownership (1 = yes) 0.72 1.47 0.60–3.56 1.85 1.96 0.74–5.19
Race (1 = African-American) 1.66 1.68 0.76–3.69 5.47* 3.10 1.20–8.00
Tenure 0.55 1.01 0.98–1.04 2.27 1.02 0.99–1.05
Gender (1 = female) 0.92 0.73 0.38–1.39 2.37 0.56 0.27–1.17
Parenthood (1 = yes) 0.22 1.17 0.61–2.23 0.08 1.11 0.52–2.37
Neighborhood problems 7.53** 1.70 1.16–2.48 1.38 1.27 0.85–1.91
Community readiness
Collective efficacy 1.42 1.27 0.86–1.86 0.00 1.01 0.67–1.54
Hope 5.35* 1.58 1.07–2.32 1.44 1.30 0.85–2.00
Community capacity
Neighborhood leadership 4.49* 1.42 1.03–1.97 13.71** 1.98 1.38–2.85
Social ties 2.57 0.73 0.50–1.07 1.86 0.73 0.47–1.14
= 24.71, df = 10, n = 198, p = .006, Nagelkerke R
= .16
= 31.97, df = 10, n = 162, p < .001, Nagelkerke R
= .24
* p < .05, ** p < .01
102 Am J Community Psychol (2007) 39:91–106
Future researchers may want to examine more spe-
cifically the processes through which neighborhood
problems affect resident involvement, such as
exploring whether distinct types of neighborhood
problems (e.g., crime, abandoned buildings) influence
different types of resident action.
Implications for practice and science
Despite significant interest in community capacity and
readiness across many disciplines and by foundations
and federal funders, the measurement of these two
constructs is still in its infancy (Norton et al., 2002).
Our study highlights two important challenges that
scientists and practitioners face when attempting to
measure and nurture these factors. First, it is essential
to clarify ‘‘capacity and readiness for what?’’ since the
critical components of readiness and capacity vary
depending upon the targeted outcome and relevant
community needs. Specifically, in our study, we found
that different components of capacity and readiness
mattered for different types and levels of resident
involvement. For example, we found that while
capacity in general was related to both whether
individuals engaged in individual activism and how
much they pursued, we also found that different ele-
ments of capacity contributed to whether involvement
happened at all versus how much involvement
occurred. Specifically, while one dimension of capac-
ity, perceived levels of neighborhood social ties, pre-
dicted whether an individual participated in individual
activism behaviors, another dimension of capacity,
perceptions of neighborhood leadership, mattered
when predicting the degree to which residents who
were involved in these activities participated. This
suggests that what helps individuals move from inac-
tion to action may be different from what helps them
become highly engaged residents within their neigh-
borhoods. In this study, initial levels of sense of
community or social ties mattered more as individuals
made the transition from inaction to action. This
finding is supported in part by Kieffer (1984) who
found that activists initially became involved in
activities due in part to their strong connections to
their neighborhood or community. On the other hand,
our findings suggest that nurturing higher levels of
activity seems to require more than just feeling good
about or connected to one’s neighborhood. Instead,
the support of a strong neighborhood leadership
infrastructure seems important to one becoming
highly active in individual activist behaviors. This
finding is not surprising, given that strong neighbor-
hood leadership is a critical component of effective
neighborhood associations or block groups (Perkins
et al., 1990).
Second, attention to which elements of readiness
and capacity are most important to target is also
important when developing useful, cost-effective
instruments. Because it is rarely possible or desirable
to measure all of the potential components of readiness
and capacity, it is important to develop a better of
understanding of when and under what conditions
different components of readiness and capacity matter.
In this study, we highlighted two elements of capacity
(e.g., social ties and leadership) and two elements of
readiness (e.g., collective efficacy, and hope for
change) and illustrated that when considering different
types and levels of resident involvement, these four
indicators assumed varying degrees of relevance and
Overall, these findings have important implications
for practitioners who are interested in fostering res-
ident involvement in community-building efforts and
in increasing overall levels of civic engagement. They
suggest that instead of adopting generic models of
community building or community development,
practitioners should consider which elements of a
neighborhood’s readiness and capacity to change are
the most important levers to target, given the out-
comes desired. For example, given that the CBI
targeted in this study—Yes we can!—is primarily
focused on building resident involvement in collec-
tive action, our findings suggest that particular
attention should be spent on fostering skills of
neighborhood leaders and increasing awareness of
neighborhood problems that could be addressed
through collective action.
The data for this study were collected as part of an
initial information-gathering effort designed to guide
the initiative’s subsequent programming and evalua-
tion and therefore were subject to a number of con-
straints that limit the generalizability of the findings.
Foremost is the use of phone survey techniques to
conduct the assessment. Anticipating more intensive
programming and data collection efforts as the initia-
tive progressed, YWC!’s designers sought to minimize
intrusion and data burden for neighborhood residents
at this early stage, resulting in the decision to gather
baseline data through the use of a short phone survey.
However, conducting a phone survey necessarily lim-
ited the sample to residents who had phones and was
likely to have excluded not only residents without
phones, who tend to be experiencing high levels of
Am J Community Psychol (2007) 39:91–106 103
economic stress and are a target of this initiative, but
also those who rely primarily on cell phones or who
regularly screen their calls.
Additionally, these data are comprised of individual
residents’ perceptions of neighborhood conditions and
do not include objective assessments, such as obser-
vations or census data, that characterize the capacity,
readiness, or problems present in the neighborhoods.
Moreover, results are cross-sectional; although we
consider it most likely that levels of capacity, readiness,
and problems precede resident’s engagement in citizen
participation and community activism, activism may be
an impetus to increases in capacity and readiness
(although probably not to increases in neighborhood
problems). This may be particularly true for individual
activism; for example, individuals who become
engaged for whatever reasons may increasingly take on
neighborhood leadership roles, thereby building
capacity and promoting others to become active resi-
dents. Research has indeed shown that involvement in
community activities builds a sense of community
(Levi & Litwin, 1986).
Conversations continue regarding the definitions of
and elements that constitute capacity and readiness.
Some theorists advocate for a broad view of readiness
that includes infrastructural elements such as re-
sources, skills, knowledge, social ties, and leadership
(e.g., Donnermeyer et al., 1997; Oetting et al., 1995).
We took the approach, however, of separating the
capacity and readiness frameworks to reflect, on the
one hand, infrastructure present in the community
context, and, on the other hand, attitudes and beliefs
that impel residents to work for change. We adopted
this approach in an effort to identify specific leverage
points that the initiative’s programmers could target
during the implementation phase. We recognize that
others may hold alternative views of capacity and
readiness and may have chosen to evaluate different
Similarly, resident involvement is a multi-faceted
concept. Here, we examined involvement in terms of
efforts to effect change both through individual actions
and connections and through participation in formal-
ized groups. We do not know whether the community
conditions found to predict resident involvement in
this study would be similarly linked to engagement in
other resident involvement opportunities. For exam-
ple, Sears and Hughes (1996) found that different
forms of citizen participation attract different types of
people, who may or may not be interested in engaging
in alternative forms of community action such as
involvement in governance structures, programming
decisions, or evaluation.
Critical to the success of CBIs is the development of an
active citizenry that is engaged in a variety of efforts
aimed at strengthening neighborhoods and rebuilding
the local infrastructure. Through participation in the
groups and organizations in their neighborhoods and
communities, residents develop increased sense of
control (Itzhaky & Schwartz, 2000) and increased
personal mastery (Donlap, 1996). This study suggests
that when community-building efforts want to promote
resident involvement in such efforts, they need to
attend to the types of involvement they desire and
consider which neighborhood conditions are most
likely to influence resident engagement in those efforts.
Acknowledgements We would like to thank the residents who
participated in the phone survey featured in this manuscript and
the W. K. Kellogg Foundation for supporting this evaluation
effort. We would also like to thank Hester Hughes, Tom Sum-
merfelt, Cherise Brandell, and Teri Barker for all their help in
carrying out this project. This project was supported by a grant
received by the first author from the W.K. Kellogg Foundation.
Armenakis, A. A., Harris, S. G., & Mossholder, K. W. (1993).
Creating readiness for organizational change. Human Rela-
tions, 46, 685–703.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A
social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Baker, E. A., & Teaser-Polk, C. (1998). Measuring community
capacity: Where do we go from here. Health Education and
Behavior, 25, 279–283.
Brackley, M., Davila, Y., Leal, C., Mudd, G., Shafer, J., Castillo,
P., Spears, W., et al. (2003). Community readiness to
prevent intimate partner violence in Bexar County, Texas.
Journal of Transcultural Nursing, 14, 227–236.
Cantillon, D., Davidson, W. S., & Schweitzer, J. H. (2003).
Measuring community social organization: Sense of com-
munity as a mediator in social disorganization theory.
Journal of Criminal Justice, 31, 1–19.
Caughy, M. O., Brodsky, A. E., O’Campo, P. J., & Aronson, R.
(2001). Perceptions of parenting: Individual differences and
the effect of community. American Journal of Community
Psychology, 29, 679–699.
Cook, T. D., Shagle, S. C., & Degirmencioglu, S. M. (1997).
Capturing social processes for testing mediational models of
neighborhood effects. In J. Brooks-Gunn, G. J. Duncan, &
J. L. Aber (Eds.), Neighborhood poverty: Policy implica-
tions in studying neighborhoods (Vol. II, pp. 94–119). New
York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Chaskin, R. (1999). Defining community capacity: A framework
and implications from a comprehensive community initiative.
Chicago, IL: Chapin Hall Center for Children.
Chaskin, R., & Peters, C. (2000). Decision making and action at
the neighborhood level: An explanation of mechanisms and
processes. Chicago, IL: Chapin Hall Center for Children.
Chavis, D. M., & Wandersman, A. (1990). Sense of community in
the urban environment: A catalyst for participation and
104 Am J Community Psychol (2007) 39:91–106
community development. American Journal of Community
Psychology, 18, 55–81.
Coulton, C. J., Korbin, J. E., Su, M., & Chow, J. (1995).
Community level factors and child maltreatment rates.
Child Development, 66, 1262–1276.
Coulton, C. J., Korbin, J. E., & Su, M. (1996). Measuring
neighborhood context for young children in an urban area.
American Journal of Community Psychology, 24, 5–32.
Crenson, M. A. (1983). Neighborhood politics. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
DiClemente, C. C., & Prochaska, J. O. (1982). Self-change and
therapy change of smoking behavior: A comparison of
processes of change in cessation and maintenance. Addictive
Behaviors, 7, 133–142.
Donnermeyer, J. F., Plested, B. A., Edwards, R. W., Oetting, E.
R., & Littlethunder, L. (1997). Community readiness and
prevention programs. Journal of the Community Develop-
ment Society, 28, 65–83.
Duffy, K. G. (1991). Introduction to community mediation
programs: Past, present and future. In K. G. Duffy, J. W.
Grosch, & P. V. Olczak (Eds.), Community mediation: A
handbook for practitioners and researchers. New York:
Duran, M. A., & Stagner, M. W. (1997). Comprehensive
community initiatives: Principles, practice, and lessons
learned. Future of Children, 7, 132–140.
Easterling, D. V., Gallagher, K. M., & Lodwick, D. G. (Eds.)
(2003). Promoting health at the community level. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Edwards, R. W., Jumper-Thurman, P., Plested, B. A., Oetting, E.
R., & Swanson, L. (2000). Community readiness: Research
to practice. Journal of Community Psychology, 28, 291–307.
Elliott, D. S., Wilson, W. J., Huizinga, D., Sampson, R. J., Elliott,
A., & Rankin, B. (1996). The effects of neighborhood
disadvantage on adolescent development. Journal of Re-
search in Crime and Delinquency, 33, 389–426.
Fawcett, S. B., Paine, A. A., Francisco, V. T., Schultz, J. A., et al.
(1995). Using empowerment theory in collaborative part-
nerships for community health and development. American
Journal of Community Psychology, 23, 677–697.
Foster-Fishman, P., Nowell, B., Siebold, W., & Deacon, Z.
(2004). Lessons for the journey: Strategies and suggestions
for guiding planning, governance, and sustainability in
comprehensive community initiatives. Battle Creek, MI:
W.K. Kellogg Foundation.
Furstenberg, F. (1993). How families manage risk and opportu-
nity in dangerous neighborhoods. In W. J. Wilson (Ed.),
Sociology and the public agenda (pp. 231–258). Newbury
Park, CA: Sage.
Garkovich, L. E. (1989). Local organizations and leadership in
community development. In J. A. Christenson, & J. W.
Robinson (Eds.), Community development in perspective.
Ames, Iowa: State University Press.
Gittell, R. J., & Vidal, A. (1998). Community organizing:
Building social capital as a development strategy. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Goodman, R. M., Speers, M. A., McLeroy, K., Fawcett, S.,
Kegler, M., Parker, E., Smith, S. R., Sterling, T. D., &
Wallerstein, N. (1998). Identifying and defining the dimen-
sions of community capacity to provide a basis for mea-
surement. Health Education and Behavior, 25, 258–278.
Gray, B., Duran, A., et al. (1997). Revisiting the critical elements
of comprehensive community initiatives. Washington, D.C.:
The Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and
Evaluation, United States Department of Health and
Human Services.
Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C.
(1995). Multivariate data analysis (4th ed.). Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Hanna, F. J. (2002). Therapy with difficult clients: Using the
precursors model to awaken change. Washington, DC:
American Psychological Association.
Itzhaky, H., & Schwartz, C. (2000). Empowerment of parents of
children with disabilities: The effect of community and
personal variables. Journal of Family Social Work, 5, 21–36.
Kieffer, C. H. (1984). Citizen empowerment: A developmental
perspective. Prevention in Human Services, 3, 9–36.
Kingsley, G. T., McNeely, J. B., et al. (1997). Community
building: Coming of age. Washington, D.C.: The Develop-
ment Training Institute & The Urban Institute.
Korbin, J. E., & Coulton, C. J. (Eds.) (1997). Understanding the
neighborhood context for children and families: Combining
epidemiological and ethnographic approaches (Vol. II). New
York: Russel Sage Foundation.
Kubisch, A. C., Auspos, P., Brown, P., Chaskin, R., Fulbright-
Anderson, K., & Hamilton, R. (2002). Voices from the field
II: Reflections on comprehensive community change. Wash-
ington, DC: The Aspen Institute.
Kubrin, C. E., & Weitzer, R. (2003). New directions in social
disorganization theory. Journal of Research in Crime and
Delinquency, 40, 374–402.
Leventhal, T., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (2000). The neighborhoods
they live in: The effects of neighborhood residence on child
and adolescent outcomes. Psychological Bulletin, 126, 309–
Levi, Y., & Litwin, H. (1986). Communities and cooperatives in
participatory development. Brookfield, VT: Gower Press.
Logan, T. K., Williams, K., & Leukefeld C. (2001). A statewide
drug court needs assessment: Identifying target counties,
assessing readiness. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 33,
Mesch, G. S., & Schwirian, K. P. (1996). The effectiveness of
neighborhood collective action. Social Problems, 43, 467–
Murphy, P. W., & Cunningham, J. V. (2003). Organizing for
community controlled development: Renewing civil society.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Norton, B. L., McLeroy, K. R., Burdine, J. N., Felix, M. R. J., &
Dorsey, A. M. (2002). Community capacity: Concept, theory,
and methods. In R. J. DiClemente, R. A. Crosby & M. C.
Kegler (Eds.), Emerging Theories in Health Promotion
Practice and Research(pp. 194–227). San Francisco, CA:
Josey Bass.
Oetting, E. R., Donnermeyer, J. F., Plested, B. A., Edwards, R.
W., Ruth, W., et al. (1995). Assessing community readiness
for prevention. International Journal of the Addictions, 30,
Oetting, E. R., Jumper-Thurman, P., Plested, B. A., & Edwards,
R. W. (2001). Community readiness and health services.
Substance Use & Misuse, 36, 825–843.
Perkins, D. D., Florin, P., Rich, R. C., Wandersman, A., &
Chavis, D. M. (1990). Participation and the social and
physical environment of residents’ blocks: Crime and
community context. American Journal of Community Psy-
chology, 18, 83–115.
Perkins, D. D., & Long, A. D. (2002). Neighborhood sense of
community and social capital: A multilevel analysis. In A. T.
Fisher, C. C. Sonn, & B. J. Bishop (Eds.), Psychological
sense of community: Research, applications, and implications
(pp. 291–316). NY: Plenum Publishers.
Peterson, N. A., & Reid, R. J. (2003). Paths to psychological
empowerment in an urban community: Sense of community
Am J Community Psychol (2007) 39:91–106 105
and citizen participation in substance abuse prevention
activities. Journal of Community Psychology, 31, 25–38.
Plested, B. A., Edwards, R. W., & Jumper-Thurman, P. (2003).
Community readiness: The key to successful change. Fort
Collins, CO: Colorado State University, Tri-Ethnic Center
for Prevention Research.
Plested, B., Smithman, D. M., Jumper-Thurman, P., Oetting, E.
R., & Edwards, R. W. (1999). Readiness for drug use
prevention in rural minority communities. Substance Use &
Misuse, 34, 521–544.
Price, R. H., & Behrens, T. (2003). Working Pasteur’s quadrant:
Harnessing science and action for community change.
American Journal of Community Psychology, 31, 219–223.
Prochaska, J. O., DiClemente, C. C., & Norcross, J. C. (1992). In
search of how people change: Applications to addictive
behaviors. American Psychologist, 47, 1102–1114.
Ross, C. E., & Jang, S. J. (2000). Neighborhood disorder, fear,
and mistrust: The buffering role of social ties with neighbors.
American Journal of Community Psychology, 28, 401–420.
Sampson, R. J., Morenoff, J., & Earls, F. (1999). Beyond social
capital: Spatial dynamics of collective efficacy for children
[Electronic version]. American Sociological Review, 64, 633–
Sampson, R. J., Morenoff, J. D., & Gannon-Rowley, T. (2002).
Assessing ‘‘neighborhood effects’’: Social processes and new
directions for research. Annual Review of Sociology, 28,
Sampson, R. J., Raudenbush, S. W., & Earls, F. (1997).
Neighborhoods and violent crime: A multilevel study of
collective efficacy. Science, 277, 918–924.
Sears, A. M., & Hughes, A. S. (1996). Citizenship education and
current educational reform. Canadian Journal of Education,
21(2), 123–142.
Skogan, W. G., & Maxfield, M. G. (1981). Coping with crime:
Individual and neighborhood reactions. Beverly Hills, CA:
Sage Publications.
Smock, K. (1997). Comprehensive community initiatives: A new
generation of urban revitalization strategies. Available: Re-
trieved on 5/20/05.
Taylor, R. B. (1997). Social order and disorder of street blocks
and neighborhoods: Ecology, microecology, and the sys-
temic model of social disorganization. Journal of Research in
Crime and Delinquency, 34, 113–155.
Traynor, B. (2002). Reflections on community organizing and
resident engagement in the Rebuilding Communities Initia-
tive. Baltimore, MD: The Annie E. Casey Foundation.
Unger, D. G., & Wandersman, A. (1983). Neighboring and its
role in block organizations: An exploratory report. Amer-
ican Journal of Community Psychology, 11(3), 291–300.
Unger, D. G., & Wandersman, A. (1985). The importance of
neighbors: The social, cognitive, and affective components
of neighboring [Electronic version]. American Journal of
Community Psychology, 13(2), 139–169.
Verba, S., Schlozman, K. L., & Brady, H. E. (1995). Voice and
equality: Civic voluntarism in American politics. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press.
Wandersman, A., Florin, P., Friedmann, R., & Meier, R. (1987).
Who participates, who does not, and why? An analysis of
voluntary neighborhood organizations in the United States
and Israel. Sociological Forum, 2(3), 534–555.
Wilson, J. Q., & Kelling, G. L. (1982). Broken windows. Atlantic
Monthly, 249(3), 29038.
106 Am J Community Psychol (2007) 39:91–106
... It often involves the development of different types of social capital, the mobilization of existing assets, the grooming of local leaders, the participation and voluntary actions of local residents, and the building of consensus (Hess, 1999;McNeely, 1999;Saegert, 2006). Participation is variously seen as a basis, part, or instrument of community building (De Souza Briggs, 1998;English, Peretz, and Manderschied, 2004;Foster-Fishman, Cantillon, Pierce, and Van Egeren, 2007;Ledwidth, 2011;Cho and Ho, 2020). ...
... Critical perspectives of both participatory planning and community building often point to the need to understand the interplay between, on the one hand, contextual factors, larger agendas, politics, and urban processes at wider city, regional, and global scales, and on the other hand, actions and outcomes at the local neighbourhood level (see e.g., Fraser, Lepofsky, Kick, and Williams, 2003;Foster-Fishman, Cantillon, Pierce, and Van Egeren, 2007;Moulaert, Swyngedouw, Martinelli, and González, 2010;Van den Broeck, 2019). Spaces for civic urbanism may be fraught with power relations particularly where they involve, or lead to, partnerships with government actors (see Cho,Križnik,and Hou,Chapter 1,this volume). ...
This chapter reflects on the community-building potential of neighbourhood based participatory planning processes, based on a non-profit organization's experiences in Singapore's Neighbourhood Renewal Programmes (NRPs). The NRP is a key government framework for resident participation in the revival of middle-aged public housing estates. Using a strategic-relational institutionalist approach, this chapter highlights how the capacity of the NRP to build relationships, and thereby enable local residents to take collective action and influence decision-making, is shaped by the dialectical interactions between various actors and institutions. It concludes that these actor-institution dynamics, as seen in four instances of the NRP, privilege the fostering of social cohesion and the observance of rules and procedures, over the empowerment of residents.
... As a participatory practice, it enables building trust and accountability, and enhancing a cooperative spirit and democratic capacity among citizens. Although citizens' participation in local decision-making processes has been increased, involving citizens in community development to address social structural problems in deprived districts is challenging (Foster-Fishman et al., 2007;Wagenaar, 2007). Being in constant contact with tenant citizens, the municipal authorities serve the new role of governments by supporting the tenant-led initiatives and integrating them into governance with professional staff (see Foroughi, 2017). ...
... It could be considered the basis, part, or instrumental [33,35,36]. Fraser [37] argued that the more community capacity increases and is mobilised, the more organised institutional structures emerge and the more positive neighbourhood outcomes may be achievedincluding, among others, influential neighbourhood governance entities that can plan and navigate the social terrain. ...
Full-text available
This study examines how local agents (non-profit-seeking actors and residents of Pa-hawang Island) developed empowering methods to address ecological problems during the island’s transformation from a small, secluded island to a tourist destination. Building capacity through grassroots initiatives, bottom-linked collaboration, and improved political bargaining power were critical components, constituting the conceptual framework to analyse the data. The socio-spatial shift in Pahawang Island reflects the nature, degree of involvement, and participation of multiple stakeholders. Slowly and gradually, bottom-up and later bottom-linked institutional efforts were implemented to lay the groundwork for a more sustainable ecology, social economy, and political transformation. Capacity building was dynamized by including it in a social innovation process, bottom-linked governance, and stimulated empowerment, which altered the governance, political bargaining power and policymaking power balance. Under these conditions, collaborative grassroots learning and action efforts can be a virtuous panacea for improving the sustainable governance of small islands, which is frequently disregarded in a neoliberal society.
... Furthermore, gendered barriers to maintaining a healthy weight include time and cultural barriers to physical activity and cultural norms related to women's weight especially before and after childbirth (De-Graft Aikins, 2011;Elvis et al., 2018). Thus the extent to which communities consider overweight and obesity to be a priority among competing challenges will have implications for community mobilization and selecting an appropriate strategy (Foster-Fishman et al., 2007;Sliwa et al., 2011). For example, Sliwa et al. (2011) discuss the promise of multi-pronged community-based approaches to childhood obesity prevention when local communities are active and engaged, and they assess community readiness for mobilization as part of their criteria for determining what type of intervention is appropriate. ...
Full-text available
The rapid rise in the prevalence of overweight and obesity, and the associated health problems, is an emerging challenge in Ghana, and for women in particular. This study contributes to the understanding of this emerging phenomenon in Ghana by analyzing it from a community perspective, applying the Community Readiness Model in two small cities in Ghana. A series of Key Informant Interviews were undertaken and analyzed, using the model's scoring structure and supplementary textual analysis. We find that communities are aware of overweight and obesity as a health issue, but that it is not prioritized or championed. Furthermore, the diet counseling and keep-fit programs put the responsibility on individuals to address, rather than considering the upstream and structural causes and solutions.
... Several tools and conceptions of readiness exist to determine the readiness stage for a specific issue or problem (9,(12)(13)(14). One widely used and flexible tool was developed at the Colorado State University based on the community readiness model (CRM) (9). ...
Full-text available
Background: Community Readiness Improvement for Tackling Childhood Obesity (CRITCO) study has been developed based on the community readiness model (CRM) to improve the readiness of targeted local communities from two diverse socioeconomic districts of Tehran for tackling childhood obesity (CO) of late primary school children (10 - 12 years of age). Objectives: This study aimed to describe the rationale and process of developing the fourth phase of CRITCO study by developing an intervention package. Methods: The readiness level data was used to analyze strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats (SWOT) of four intervention sites to guide proper strategies in partnership with key community members. Then, the action plan was developed as a living document to guide a 6-month quasi-experimental community-based intervention around the six dimensions of CRM. Finally, the community engagement process, outcome, and evaluation process were explained. Results: The current report described the action plan and strategy development of the CRITCO study. Expectedly, this study can provide valuable information to guide the public health policymakers in planning and executing relevant interventions.
... Social ties and community attachment have been strongly associated with civic engagement (Barnes & Sheppard, 1992;Foster-Fishman, Cantillon, Pierce, & Van Egeren, 2007;Gould, 1993;Granovetter, 1985;Putnam, 2000;Ryan et al., 2005). For example, Ryan et al.'s (1994) study indicated that social resources supply the necessary tools to build community attachment, and the combination of the two have an impact on collective action. ...
The United States is poised to experience one of the largest transfers of leadership in its history, markedly impacting rural community sustainability efforts. The purpose of this exploratory sequential mixed methods study was to identify themes related to rural leadership transfer using grounded theory and to test the facilitation of effective leadership transfer using structural equation modeling. Adult and youth leaders (N = 19) from three nominated rural communities comprised the qualitative phase and secondary data from a 2015 rural survey (N = 1991) comprised the quantitative phase. Mixed methods results indicated the environment conducive for effective leadership transfer (via broadened civic engagement) was facilitated when community hope became contagious based upon community development efforts achieved by hopeful, persistent community leaders. The presented findings offer greater precision to leadership research in community contexts and enable increased effectiveness in facilitating community leadership transitions, thus enhancing their generative capabilities. (Link to article website:
Purpose: Organizational readiness is critical for successful implementation of an innovation. We evaluated program readiness to implement Competence by Design (CBD), a model of Competency-Based Medical Education (CBME), among Canadian postgraduate training programs. Methods: A survey of program directors was distributed 1 month prior to CBD implementation in 2019. Questions were informed by the R = MC2 framework of organizational readiness and addressed: program motivation, general capacity for change, and innovation-specific capacity. An overall readiness score was calculated. An ANOVA was conducted to compare overall readiness between disciplines. Results: Survey response rate was 42% (n = 79). The mean overall readiness score was 74% (30-98%). There was no difference in scores between disciplines. The majority of respondents agreed that successful implementation of CBD was a priority (74%), and that their leadership (94%) and faculty and residents (87%) were supportive of change. Fewer perceived that CBD was a move in the right direction (58%) and that implementation was a manageable change (53%). Curriculum mapping, competence committees and programmatic assessment activities were completed by >90% of programs, while <50% had engaged off-service disciplines. Conclusion: Our study highlights important areas where programs excelled in their preparation for CBD, as well as common challenges that serve as targets for future intervention to improve program readiness for CBD implementation.
Die Frage nach den Potenzialen von Nachbarschaften gewinnt derzeit wieder an Bedeutung. Gründe dafür liegen unter anderem in der zunehmenden Unübersichtlichkeit infolge von Pluralisierungs- und damit verbundenen Ausdifferenzierungsprozessen. Die Planung und Steuerung von Städten folgt heute keinem kategorischen Imperativ mehr, verortet sich in Hyperdynamiken und erfordert von Expert*innen aus den unterschiedlichen Handlungsfeldern die Fähigkeit, mit Mehrdeutigkeiten und Unsicherheiten umzugehen. Im Suchprozess nach geeigneten Interventionsebenen werden Nachbarschaften als stabile „Keimzellen“ der Lebenswelt konstruiert, und die Reduktion auf überschaubare sozialräumliche und territoriale Ausschnitte suggeriert Berechenbarkeit und Planbarkeit. Der Beitrag durchbricht dieses Verständnis und konzeptualisiert Nachbarschaften als etwas Situatives, Kontextabhängiges und Prozessuales, das auf der Basis eines gemeinsam geteilten Raumes durch menschliches Handeln im Alltag entsteht. Nähe und Distanz, Annäherung und Abgrenzung, sowie Ideale des Mit- und Nebeneinanders in städtischen Räumen werden dabei am geteilten Wohnort kontinuierlich verhandelt. Nachbarschaft aus einer alltagstheoretischen Perspektive zu konzeptualisieren, soll dabei eine Unter- und Überschätzung des lokalen Potenzials von „Nachbarschaft“ in der Stadtentwicklung sichtbar machen.
Collective action is one strategy urban neighborhood residents use to address community issues. However, collective action dynamics in rapidly changing urban neighborhoods are not well understood. This study used photovoice to examine perspectives on collective action and neighborhood change among residents of an urban neighborhood experiencing redevelopment in Atlanta, Georgia, USA. Residents indicated that place attachment motivated and reinforced participation in collective action efforts to address neighborhood issues and to reconstruct narratives that challenged place stigmatization. Findings suggest that residents have heterogeneous perspectives about neighborhood change and local development, and simultaneously balance desires for neighborhood improvement with concerns about displacement, gentrification, and equitable development.
This case study explores the participant perspectives of a Community Leadership Program (CLP) in an underserved community. The CLP aimed to improve community conditions by increasing participants’ knowledge, skills, and confidence to participate in local governance forums. Our three research foci were to understand (1) how successful the program was in building individual leadership skills, (2) how skills were applied through participation in leadership activities, and (3) identify the barriers for practicing leadership in marginalized communities. Findings show that CLP participants highlighted the program’s impact on their: confidence to express their findings in public, ability to outreach to members of their community, and self-identify as leaders. While participants were participating more in social and political activities, they also expressed that the program did not equip them to deal with serious barriers such as responses to community members’ practice of leadership, access to institutional power and knowledge, and lack of resources.
Neighborhood norms are an important determinant of beliefs and attitudes about parenting, and measuring changes in community norms is an important component of evaluating community‐based programs for improving child outcomes. The purpose of this study was to determine whether or not a survey of community residents' perceptions of parenting could be used to measure community parenting norms and whether these perceptions differed by individual or community characteristics. Two community surveys with 870 and 914 respondents, respectively, were conducted in 3 low‐income neighborhoods. Results indicated that perceptions of parenting could be measured reliably at the community level although it is important to consider the presence of multiple norms when using such measures. Furthermore, differences in perceptions of parenting associated with individual characteristics were markedly decreased when neighborhood characteristics were considered, suggesting that the association of individual characteristics with perceptions of parenting is confounded by neighborhood characteristics.
This paper proposes that individuals who report that they live in neighborhoods characterized by disorder—by crime, vandalism, graffiti, danger, noise, dirt, and drugs—have high levels of fear and mistrust. It further proposes that an individual's alliances and connections with neighbors can buffer the negative effects of living in a neighborhood characterized by disorder on fear and mistrust. Results from a representative sample of 2482 Illinois residents collected by telephone in 1995 support the propositions. Living in a neighborhood with a lot of perceived disorder significantly affects mistrust and the fear of victimization, adjusting for sociodemographic characteristics. Perceived neighborhood disorder and social ties significantly interact: informal social ties with neighbors reduce the fear‐ and mistrust‐producing effects of disorder. However, formal participation in neighborhood organizations shows little buffering effect.
This innovative text uses seven case studies to evaluate community-driven health promotion and present promising strategies for initiating and sustaining community-based efforts. Individual chapters describe real-world, multi-site health initiatives and summarize their evaluation outcomes.
This book offers an approach to working with clients who simply do not seem to change. Therapeutic change, in the author's view, hinges on the presence of seven precursors, or harbingers, of change: hope, awareness, a sense of necessity to change, the willingness to experience anxiety or difficulty, confronting issues, the exertion of will or effort, and the presence of social support. The presence of these precursors bodes well for a client no matter what the therapist's theoretical orientation. The converse is also true: their absence or deficiency close the relationship. The good news for any therapist who has ever encountered a client who believes change is frightening, unattainable, or a waste of time is that the obstacles are not insurmountable. In this practical guide, the author offers a tool for assessing the readiness for change in clients and in therapists. He offers an abundance of strategies, examples, and insights for enhancing precursors that are lacking and leveraging those that are present. This model offers invaluable guidance for the stalled client and therapist alike. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)