- Toolkits
- Are You Ready to Talk?
- Beyond the Line
- Blocking Gender Bias
- Edgy Veggies
- First-Gen Ascend
- Fishbowl Discussions
- Measuring Mobility
- Peaceful Politics
- Plot the Me You Want to Be
- RaceWorks
- Rethinking Stress
- Space Reface
- Team Up Against Prejudice
- United States of Immigrants
- Kit Companion: Map Your Identities
- Kit Companion: LARA
- Collections
- Action Areas
- About
Collective Efficacy Scale
Factor: Being Valued in Community
Age: Adult
Duration: Less than 3 minutes
Reading Level: Less than 6th grade
What
Created by sociologist Robert Sampson and colleagues (1997), the 10-item Collective Efficacy Scale measures how well communities work together to make things happen. The scale has two parts. The informal social control section assesses how likely neighbors are to intervene when there is trouble, and the social cohesion and trust section assesses how likely neighbors are to support each other in times of need.
Who
Researchers have used this scale with adults in communities living on a low income (Sampson, Raudenbush, & Earls, 1997).
How
INSTRUCTIONS
To complete the 5-item informal social control section, respondents use a 5-point scale (1 = very likely; 5 = very unlikely) to rate statements such as, “Would you say it is likely or unlikely that your neighbors would intervene if a fight broke out in front of your house?”
To complete the 5-item social cohesion and trust section, respondents use a different 5-point (1 = strongly agree; 5 = strongly disagree) to rate statements such as, “People around here are willing to help their neighbors.”
Researchers later reverse-code the two negatively worded items so that high values mean more collective efficacy, and then calculate a score for each respondent by averaging their ratings.
RESPONSE FORMAT
This survey uses multiple answer formats. Please see the Google document for more information.
Instructions: Please circle your answer below.
Could your neighbors be counted on to intervene in various ways if:
1. Children were skipping school and hanging out on a street corner
2. Children were spray-painting graffiti on a local building
3. Children were showing disrespect to an adult
4. A fight broke out in front of their house
5. The fire station closest to their home was threatened with budget cuts
Instructions: Please rate how much you agree or disagree with the following statements.
6. “People around here are willing to help their neighbors”
7. “This is a close-knit neighborhood”
8. “People in this neighborhood can be trusted”
9. “People in this neighborhood generally don’t get along with each other”
10. “People in this neighborhood do not share the same values”
Why It Matters
Neighborhoods where respondents report greater collective efficacy have less violence (Sampson, Raudenbush, & Earls, 1997), less domestic partner abuse (Browning, 2002), and better health (Cohen, Finch, Bower, & Sastry, 2006). As violence, abuse, and illness undermine job and school performance, increasing collective efficacy may be one way to promote upward mobility. Collective efficacy may also result from social mobility, as it is higher in neighborhoods where people own their homes and lower in neighborhoods with less racial and economic equality (Sampson, Raudenbush, & Earls, 1997).
HEADS UP
This scale is best suited for studying neighborhoods. Also note that, although research suggests that improving collective efficacy should increase upward mobility, no studies have directly tested this idea.
References
Browning, C. R. (2002). The span of collective efficacy: Extending social disorganization theory to partner violence. Journal of Marriage and Family, 64(4), 833-850.
Cohen, D. A., Finch, B. K., Bower, A., & Sastry, N. (2006). Collective efficacy and obesity: The potential influence of social factors on health. Social Science & Medicine, 62(3), 769-778.
Sampson, R. J., Raudenbush, S. W., & Earls, F. (1997). Neighborhoods and violent crime: A multilevel study of collective efficacy. Science, 277(5328), 918-924.
