The role of community psychologists in community development, neighborhood revitalization and citizen participation: Background & 3 examples Douglas D. Perkins, Ph.D. Director, Center for Community Studies http://peabody.vanderbilt.edu/ccs Vanderbilt University Nashville, USA Cos’è lo sviluppo di comunità? ► Politiche governative, organizzazioni nonprofit organizations (es, corporazione di sviluppo di comunità (CDCs) & altre organizzazioni non governative (NGOs)), associazioni volontarie di cittadini, or partnerships publiche o private che lavorano per migliorare la comunità: Ambiente economico (business & opportunità di lavoro) Ambiente fisico (es, abitazioni milgiori, servizi per I cittadini, centri ricreativi, pulizia dei parchi & dei luoghi inquinati) Ambiente politico (consigli della comunità attivi, associazioni di quartiere) Ambiente sociale (strade più sicure, senso di comunità, buon vicinato) 3 tipi maggiori di sviluppo di comunità per area : 1. 2. 3. Rivitalizzazione dei quartieri residenziali urbani e suburbani Ri-sviluppo del centro città (downtown) Rurale: in risposta ai problemi globali dell’economia (agricoltura) & delle infrastrutture (abitazioni, strade, scuole, servizi) Current Concepts in Community Development ► Grassroots “Empowerment” Community Development “bottom-up” vs. “top-down” Residents organizing and acting collectively, on their own, or with professional help ► ► ► ► ► Social Capital (Housing Policy Debate, '98,#1); www.worldbank.org/poverty/scapital ) Asset-based Community Development (ABCD: Kretzman & McKnight; www.nwu.edu/IPR/abcd.html ) Sustainability: economically, environmentally (socially? Politically?) Capacity building Learning communities Una cornice ecologica per lo sviluppo di comunità [Perkins et al., (2004). Community development as a response to community-level adversity: Ecological theory and research and strengths-based policy. In Investing in children, youth, families and communities: Strengths-based research and policy. APA Books.] scala più allargata ruolo delle politiche pubbliche Ambiente Economico Ambiente Politico Risorse e finanzaimenti a lungo termine: lavoro, paghe adeguate, assistenza alle piccole imprese, assistenza alla casa sostegno & reazione alle organizzazioni della comunità, alle coalizioni, sostegno alle politiche e ai progetti di sviluppo, abitazioni per basso reddito, alloggi adeguati scala più ristretta ruolo dei cittadini e della comunità sviluppo di comunità processi e risultati Investimenti a breve termine: case (riparazioni, miglioramenti) piccole imprese (assunzioni & patrocini) Ecologico & complessivo: Partecipazione formale in: organizzazioni di comunità advocacy/azioni dei cittadini voto Economico Politico Sociael Ambiente Sociale Programmi di comunità: cure sanitarie/prevenzione milgiori scuole nel vicinato programmi dopo-scuola politiche della comunità connessioni nella comunità Comportamenti informali centrati sulla cominità, atteggiamenti, emozioni: attaccamento al luogo, soddisfazione coesione sociale, coinvolgimento celebrazione delle diversità culturali empowerment/efficacia di comunità vicinato, sostegno, mentoring controllo sociale, prevenzione dei crimini Fisico Focalizzato sui punti di forzA: Empowering Risorse della comunità Ambiente Fisico transito di persone, aree pedonali uso misto residenziale e commerciale creazione e protezione di spazi pubblici Infrastrutture: scuole, strade, luce Servizi: acqua, sanità, incendio, emergenza protezione ambietnale mantenimento abbellimento della proprietà giardini pubblici, pulizie uso e cura degli spazi pubblici cooperative agricole della comunità Fight highways, contaminazione sostegno alla casa, rivitalizzazione sostenibile Creazione di abilitò Capitale sociale, comunità formative How can community psychologists assist in community development, neighborhood revitalization and citizen participation? ► They can help groups to define their community and identify its assets as well as problems: Q: qual è la tua “comunità?” Q: come la definiresti? Q: le comunità terrritoriali sono ancora importanti (es, quartiere)? Perchè sì o perchè no? Da dove si inizia a organizzare la nostra comunità? Quale tema sceglieresti? (see Kahn, 1992) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. I temi devono essere “vincenti”, includendo chiare vittorie a breve termine. L’umore e il clima politico sono favorevoli? Can it be made so? La vittoria deve essere definita da reali miglioramenti nella vita delle persone. La vittoria deve dare alle persone nuovo significato al loro “potere”. La vittoria deve alterare le relazioni di potere nelle decisioni future. I temi devono costruire e unire e non dividere l’organizzazione. I temi devono essere gestibili, non troppo costosi in termini di tempo, sforzi e denaro. I temi devono essere sentiti in modo forte e profondo (consenso). Semplicità: I temi devono essere facili da capire, idealmente con degli aspetti bienche e neri, giusti e sbagliati, anche se questo può essere soggettivo. I tempi devono essere urgenti e nuovi (non problemi a cui le persone si sono abituate). Ci deve essere uno spazio temporale chiaro e sufficiente ( per tutte le fasi dell’azione e per piani di emergenza). Ci deve essere un chiaro target per l’azione (idealmente, sia un "target primario" sia "target secondario"). Aiuta essere in grado di trovare finanziamenti. Per non perdere lo slancio, il tema dovrebbe condurre ad altri da affrontare. CP can provide useful information based on research & evaluation-- EG, What works in neighborhood revitalization? ► 1. 2. ► Revitalization successes vary, but general themes include: Resident involvement & strength building + commitment & resources from higher levels & outside sources of funds &/or expertise Revitalization programs that target common problems of urban areas: low sense of community & high crime & fear of crime; housing & dilapidation problems; school & youth program quality; economic opportunity These general themes are consistent w/ theory & research in community psychology & show that a collaborative effort involving multiple agencies & citizens is necessary CP provides concepts & theories to understand community development & participation on different dimensions: Lynne C. Manzo & Douglas D. Perkins (2006). Finding common ground: The importance of place attachment to community participation and planning. Journal of Planning Literature Community-Related Dimensions Place Social Cognitive Place Identity Community Identity Affective Place Attachment Sense of Community Behavioral Participation in Neighboring Activities Neighborhood Planning Participation in Crime Prevention Protection and Improvement Community Celebrations Table 2. A framework for organizing psychological concepts that focuses on community in both its physical and social aspects. Community Environment & Behavior Exercises ► ► ► ► ► ► 1. Draw a cognitive map of your current or hometown neighborhood. Identify your home, streets and pedestrian paths you take, neighborhood niches (stores, restaurants, etc.), anchoring institutions (churches, schools, library, rec. centers, others?), public green space (gardens, parks, playgrounds). Mark your favorite place(s). 2. More on favorite places: A. What is your favorite place anywhere in the world? (Does not have to be the one(s) marked above. You may mention more than one place if you want.) Where is it located? What type of place is it? B. What makes each of these places special to you? C. How do you feel when you are in each of these places? D. In what ways have each of these places influenced your personal development or sense of identity as an individual or as a member of a group? Example 1: “The Plan of Nashville: Avenues to a great city” CP can work with NGOs to create a Collaborative Planning process, connecting city leaders, planners, architects, university, & community members: Nashville Civic Design Center www.CivicDesignCenter.org Sample project: Plan of Nashville: Avenues to a Great City www.PlanOfNashville.com Suburban sprawl, “New Urbanism,” and the Plan of Nashville Population Density This map illustrates the relative density of Nashville neighborhoods, showing which geographic areas have the greatest potential for infill development (2000 U.S. Census). Transit Density This map illustrates the areas where people currently travel to work via public transportation. Why is transit usage so low in Nashville? Area H-I-J [Midtown-South] Workshop Midtown-South Workshop Drawings From Freeways to Greenways 10 principles of good planning & design 1. Respect Nashville's natural and built environment: preserve & enhance the landscape's natural features, historic preservation. 2. Treat the Cumberland River as central to Nashville's identity— an asset to be treasured and enjoyed: protect riverbanks, public access. 3. Re-establish the streets as the principal public space of community and connectivity within & between neighborhoods & downtown. 4. Develop a convenient and efficient transportation infrastructure: street system that balances mobility & access needs; & needs of pedestrians, bicycles, mass transit, cars & trucks; improved network of mass transit. 5. A comprehensive, interconnected greenway and park system linking neighborhoods and the Cumberland River; parks for all neighborhoods equipped for a variety of recreational, generational & cultural activities. 6. Develop a viable, vibrant & unique downtown as the heart of the region, with more housing & a variety of uses that support workers, residents and visitors, e.g., schools, retail, after-hours and weekend activities. 7. Raise the quality of the public realm & civic pride with public structures and spaces [e.g., Library, Frist, Courthouse Square]. 8. Integrate public art into the design of the city, its buildings, streets & parks. 9. Strengthen the unique identity of neighborhoods with strong neighborhood centers & boundaries, a mixture of land uses & residential diversity within each neighborhood, & strong neighborhood organizations. 10. Infuse visual order into the city by strengthening vistas & sightlines to & from civic landmarks and natural features. Example 2: An empirical test of a neighborhood typology for community organizing based on social interaction, community identity, connections & influence by Douglas D. Perkins, Center for Community Studies, Vanderbilt University and Véronique Dupéré, Department of Psychology, University of Montreal Based on the paper, “Six types of streetblocks: An empirical test of Warren & Warren’s neighborhood typology for community organizing” presented at session 33 [Community organizing for power & change: Critiques & alternatives]. 35th Annual Meeting of the Urban Affairs Assoc., Salt Lake City, 4/15/05. Original data collection supported by NIMH grant from Center for Violent & Antisocial Behavior (Ralph Taylor, principal investigator; Douglas Perkins, project director). Correspondence: [email protected] Overview ► Already applied block/neighborhood cluster analysis to mental health: Dupéré, V., & Perkins, D.D. (in press). Block types and mental health: An ecological study of local environmental stress and coping. American Journal of Community Psychology. ► This paper: Based on years observing grassroots community organizations and 2 NIMH-funded studies of Detroit neighborhoods in 1969 & 1974, Don & Rachelle Warren identified 6 neighborhood types according to how "organizable" they are. To my knowledge, this typology has never been independently validated or tested. Warren, D.I. (1969). Neighborhood structure and riot behavior in Detroit: Some exploratory findings. Social Problems, 16, 464-484. Warren, D.I. (1975). Black neighborhoods: An assessment of community power. University of Michigan Press. Warren, D.I., & Warren, R.B. (1975). Six types of neighborhoods. PsychologyToday, 9(1), 74-79. Warren, R.B., & Warren, D.I. (1977). The neighborhood organizer's handbook. University of Notre Dame Press. Warren & Warren’s 6 Neighborhood Types: ► The criterion variables they use are: a) resident social interaction b) community identity (identification, sense of community) c) “linkages”: connections & influence with larger social & political institutions High and low values on each variable determine the six neighborhood types they identified: 1. integral (high interaction, identity and influence) 2. parochial (high interaction, high identity and low influence) 3. diffuse (low interaction, high identity and low influence) 4. stepping-stone (high interaction, low identity and high influence) 5. transitory (low interaction, low identity and high influence) 6. anomic (low interaction, low identity and low influence) This Study tests empirical validity of that classic typology ► using quantitative cluster analysis ► of 1987-88 survey data ► from 50 Baltimore city blocks representing 50 different neighborhoods ► compared by cluster/type for level of participation in neighborhood improvement associations crosssectionally & 1 year later ► Block types also tested for demographic differences, which are then used as control variables in comparison of participation levels: income, education, race, residential stability, home ownership ► Methods ► 412 residents surveyed (1 yr panel = 305) ►54% in-home; 46% telephone ►Time-1 response rate (contacted) = 84% ►Time-2 response rate (eligible) = 91% ► Systematic sampling of neighborhoods with probability proportionate to population for geographic dispersion throughout city ► Ecologically valid units (residential street blocks) and analyses (nonlinear) Operationalization of Warrens’ key criteria: ► interaction: During the past 12 months… have you done any of the following for a neighbor who lives within a couple of blocks, and have they done each for you? ► Kept watch on a house or apartment while owner was away? ► Brought in newspapers or mail while neighbors were away? ► Been given a key by a neighbor so that animals could be fed, plants watered, or the house checked on while they were away? ► Lent tools or household items to a neighbor? have you borrowed tools or household items from a neighbor? have you done any of the following with a neighbor who lives within a couple of blocks? ► Spoken to a neighbor? ► Visited inside a neighbor's house? ► Gone out socially with a neighbor (for the evening, a vacation, etc.)? Operationalization of Warrens’ key criteria: ►identity: Do you feel that you are part of the block, or that it's just a place to live? How much do you feel you share the same interests and concerns with people on your block? How attached do you feel to the block you are now living on? Operationalization of Warrens’ key criteria: ►“linkages”: connections & influence with larger social & political institutions I. Do you happen to be a member of any of the following types of local organizations in your neighborhood? II. Have you done any work for any of them? III. Is anyone else in your household a member? ► Church or synagogue groups? ► Community center or youth organizations? ► Local political or issue-oriented groups? ► Social groups or clubs? ► Other neighborhood organizations? Cluster Analysis Table 1. Hierarchical cluster analysis with Ward's method found 4 cluster solution to best fit data: Cluster Means: Warrens’ 3 Factors: 1 2 3 4 1 - IDENTIFICATION .38 .01 -.29 -.55 2 - INTERACTIONS .06 .32 -.08 -.43 3 - INFLUENCE .14 -.02 -.19 -.10 Cluster 1 2 3 4 # of Blocks Relationship to Warren typology: 19 Integral (but average interaction) 12 Parochial (but not really high identification or low influence) 9 Anomic (but not lowest interaction) 10 Anomic or Transitory (but influence doesn’t clearly fit either) Cluster analysis forcing a 6 cluster solution TABLE 2. Characteristics of Block Types : Between-Group Differences for Identification, Interaction and Influence Block type* N Identification Interactions M SD M SD Influence M SD 1 Integral 4 0.50a 0.10 0.23a 0.05 0.45 0.22 2 Diffuse (with moderate interaction & influence) 14 0.36a 0.19 0.00b 0.17 0.05a 0.09 3 Stepping-stone (with moderate identification & influence) 10 0.07 0.22 0.37a 0.16 0.03a,b 0.11 4 Transitory (with moderate influence) 8 -0.47 0.13 -0.47 0.19 -0.07b,c 0.17 5 Mildly Anomic 11 -0.22 0.15 -0.05b 0.15 -0.15c,d 0.09 6 Intensely Anomic 3 -0.73 0.29 -0.16b 0.23 -0.24d 0.04 Total 50 -0.01 0.41 0.00 0.31 -0.01 0.20 ANOVA (all p < .001) F (5, 44)= 40.8 F (5, 44)= 24.8 F (5, 44)= 17.8 * No “parochial” cluster found (high interaction, high identity and low influence). Note. Means in a column sharing subscripts are not significantly different (p < .05). TABLE 3. Characteristics of Block Types: Between-Group Differences on Control Variables Block type Income (thousands $) M SD Education (years) M SD Race (% of whites) M SD Residential stability (years) M Home ownership (% of owners) SD M SD 1 28.9a,b 3.3 12.2 1.0 62.5 42.1 20.1a,b,c 6.6 91.0a,b 11.9 2 26.2c,d,e 12.1 12.5 2.7 37.1a 45.2 17.0d 6.2 73.3c,d 22.8 3 26.4f,g 8.7 12.2 1.6 85.0a,b,c,d 32.2 17.0e 6.2 83.8e,f 16.7 4 15.2a,c,f 6.2 11.3 1.5 16.7b 30.9 11.4a 7.0 16.8a,c,e 16.1 5 18.9d 6.2 12.1 1.6 45.7c 41.0 11.8b 7.2 48.4a,c,e,g 31.5 6 11.7b,e,g 8.7 12.0 2.9 25.0d 43.3 7.6c,d,e 1.7 4.2b,d,f,g 7.2 Total 22.2 9.9 12.1 2.0 46.6 43.8 14.6 7.0 58.1 34.7 F (5, 44)= 3.65** F(5,44)= 0.35 F (5, 44)= 3.29* F(5, 44)= 2.73* *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001 Note. Means in a column sharing subscripts are significantly different (p < .05). F(5,44)= 15.34*** TABLE 4. Mean Scores on Participation in Block Organizations as a Function of Block Types Time 1 Block type 1 Integral M 0.44a,b,c,d Time 2 SD 0.23 M SD 0.46a,b,c, 0.31 d 2 Diffuse (with moderate interaction & influence) 0.21a,c,d 0.21 0.23a,c 0.25 3 Stepping-stone (with moderate identification & influence) 0.10b 0.08 0.21b 0.17 4 Transitory (with moderate influence) 0.02a 0.03 0.05a 0.07 5 Mildly Anomic 0.08c 0.11 0.07c 0.10 6 Intensely Anomic 0.01d 0.02 0.06d 0.06 Total 0.14 0.18 0.17 0.21 ANOVA F (5, 44)= 6.35*** F (5, 44)= 3.89** **p < .01; ***p < .001 Note. Means in a column sharing subscripts are significantly different (p < .05). TABLE 5. Mean comparison on participation in neighborhood associations at time 1 and time 2, after controlling for income, proportion of whites, residential stability and home ownership Time 1 Block type Time 2 M SD M 1 Integral 0.44a,b,c,d 0.23 0.46a,b,c,d,e 0.31 2 Diffuse (with moderate interaction & influence) 0.21a 0.21 0.23a 0.25 3 Stepping-stone (with moderate identification & influence) 0.10a 0.08 0.21b 0.17 4 Transitory (with moderate influence) 0.02b 0.03 0.05c 0.07 5 Mildly Anomic 0.08c 0.11 0.07d 0.10 6 Intensely Anomic 0.01d 0.02 0.06e 0.06 Total 0.14 0.18 0.17 0.21 ANOVA † F (5, 40)= 4.82** SD F (5, 40)= 2.14† p < .10; **p < .01 Note. Means in a column sharing subscripts are significantly different (p < .05). Conclusions ► Warren neighborhood typology only partially supported: Most of the types found, although not exactly as prescribed 4 cluster solution was best fit with data, none exactly matching Warrens’ types, but partially matching integral, parochial and anomic (2 clusters) 6 cluster solution resembled Warren typology a little better, but no parochial Cluster differences in participation levels supported, with integral blocks highest, diffuse & stepping-stone in middle, and anomic and transitory lowest; BUT controlling for demographics, only integral blocks signif. > rest Implications for community research using cluster analytic techniques ► ► ► ► Robust approach: can be applied to any level: individuals, blocks, neighborhoods, cities, organizations… Using same dataset, we also cluster-analyzed blocks based on level of block stressors (disorder, fear of crime) & social resources (org. participation, informal social ties) to identify 7 block types that differed signif. on well-being and depression. After controlling for aggregated personal stress and support and demographics, significant block differences remained on well-being, but not on depression. Both analyses suggest that different urban community types exist and can be identified and that those differences may relate in complex, non-linear ways with community participation and well being. Conclusions, cont. ► Ecological validity: Cluster analysis does not assume or depend on linear relationships among variables; takes groups as they are Street block (ecological niche) as behavior setting Longitudinal data ► Need to replicate with more current data, Warrens’ exact measures, and different cities Implications for: theories of social organization Warrens’ typology, while partially validated, is too simplistic; real urban neighborhoods are both complex & varied ► community organizing practice ► Home ownership probably more important predictor of neighborhood association participation It no doubt does help to learn about resident social interaction, community identity, & connections & influence with larger social & political institutions; and how to enhance each of those. And there may be “anomic” communities that are too hard to organize given time & resource constraints. But the neighborhood typology approach may be misused if used to write off whole communities as unorganizable. Example 3: Psychological Predictors of Neighborhood Revitalization: A multi-level analysis Douglas D. Perkins, Vanderbilt University Barbara B. Brown, University of Utah D. Adam Long, Vanderbilt University Courtney Larsen, University of Utah Graham Brown, University of British Columbia Earlier versions of this paper presented to Urban Affairs Association, Detroit, 4/01, and Environmental Design Research Association, Philadelphia, 5/02. Research supported by grant 98IJCX0022 from National Institute of Justice. Points of view are the authors’ and do not necessarily represent the position of the U.S. Dept. of Justice. All correspondence: Douglas D. Perkins, Dept. of Human and Organizational Development, Box 90, Peabody College, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN 37203; Email: [email protected] Web: peabody.vanderbilt.edu/depts/hod Figure 1: An Ecological Framework for Fear, Crime, & Participation in Community Organizations (analyzed at individual & community levels) Distal / Stable Proximal / Transient Outcomes Economic Environment Social Environment Physical Environment Resources / Long-term Investment: Income, Home Ownership / New Housing Demographic Characteristics: Education; Length of Residence; Race; Religion Built Environment (Defensible Space) Nonresidential Land Use Short-term Investments: Home Repairs & Improvements Community Perceptions, Attitudes, & Behaviors: Community Satisfaction; Communitarianism; Place Attachment; Organization Efficacy; Neighboring Behavior; Sense of Community; Informal Social Control; Community Problems Territorial Markers Symbols of Disorder Participation in Community Organizations Fear of Crime Crime Anxiety and Depression Overview of Present Study Study uses GIS mapping & hierarchical linear models to examine individual & street block-level effects, over a 5year period, of: • community psychological ties (place attachment, collective efficacy, perceived neighborhood qualities), • perceived quality-of-life and crime problems, • & a large-scale neighborhood revitalization project (new middle-income, subdivision of larger homes & lots) On: • incumbent upgrading (observed and self-reported) • & home satisfaction in adjacent urban neighborhoods on the decline, physically and economically, in Salt Lake City, Utah. Salt Lake City, Utah, USA Neighborhood Revitalization Literature ► Past studies found urban homesteading and other revitalization spillover effects to be either negligible (Varady, 1986) or geographically limited (Ginsberg, 1983): Varady (1984) found no community confidence effects of HUD Urban Homesteading Demonstration. Ulusoy (1998), found block-level revitalization -> incumbent upgrading but not residential stability (fixing up to sell). Taub, Taylor, & Dunham (1984), found that residents upgraded more if they had neighbors who upgraded. Ginsberg (1982), found that home improvements within 1/16th mile instilled neighbors confidence enough to make home improvements. Latest policy trends: The revitalization project studied represents 3 major urban/housing policy directions: 1. the emphasis on home ownership for working-class families, 2. the deconcentration of poverty through development of mixed-income neighborhoods, and 3. the clean up and redevelopment of contaminated, former industrial “brownfields.” ► #1 has been greatest & most influential policy direction: Larger-scale, homeownership-based redevelopment programs have swept the U.S.: e.g., HOPE-VI ► Studies of this latest round of revitalization are starting to show that these projects are having significant spillover effects on increased property values in the surrounding neighborhood: ► NYC: Nehemiah Homes, Partnership New Homes (Ellen, Schill, Susin & Schwarz, 2001; Nashville: HOPE-VI, Banc of Am. CDC (Ghosh; Perkins et al., 2002) National HOPE-VI eval.?? (Urban Inst., 2002) BUT: ► ► Other than community confidence, psychological and behavioral factors in revitalization-- such as place attachment, collective efficacy (neighboring, informal social control, sense of community), and perceived crime, environmental disorder, and other quality-oflife problems-- have been largely ignored as predictors of revitalization. And thus far in the recent analyses, outcomes or indicators of revitalization have been similarly limited: incumbent upgrading spillover effects have not been widely examined. And psychological indicators, such as home satisfaction or the social fabric variables above have not been considered. Design ► Longitudinal: 2 waves of data collection on 59 street blocks: Time 1 (collected by students during construction of subdivision): 1993-95, complete data n of HH = 365. Time 2 (collected by professional survey firm 4 years post-construction): 1998-99, complete data n of HH = 593. ► Panel sample limitations (individual-level longitudinal analyses impossible): address matches at both Time 1 & Time 2: n = 315; same-household matches at both Time 1 & Time 2: n = 147; same-person matches at both Time 1 & Time 2: n = 78. ► ► Present data mostly Time 2, but each Time 1 IV was aggregated to block level and used both in raw form and to derive regression residuals on the same variables at Time 2. This was done in order to test the effects of unexpected block-level changes in each independent variable. Sources of data: Revised Block Environmental Inventory (objectively observed conditions) Resident survey City building permit records Block Environmental Inventory “Street Block”: __| | | |__ __ _______________________________ ___ | | | | Purpose: Objectively measure physical features of residential blocks and individual property exteriors and yards associated with crime, fear, and neighborhood vitality or decline. Procedure: In-person observation by trained raters of specific block-level social (number and description of users of outdoor space) and physical (e.g., vacant homes, abandoned cars) cues. More detailed checklist of individual residential (used here) and nonresidential properties includes defensible space features (lighting, barriers), territorial markers (plantings, personalizations), and incivilities (poor maintenance, litter). Inter-rater agreement: All sampled homes were independently rated by two raters at Time 1 (n = 365; Cronbach’s alpha ranged from .70 to .93 for different items). At Time 2, a subsample were rated by two raters (n = 201; alpha ranged from .92 to 1.00). Resident Survey How: 30-minute survey conducted in Spanish or English depending on respondent preference. Administered by telephone if a phone number was available, in-person if not. At both Time 1 & Time 2, approx. ½ administered by telephone & ½ in person. Compensation: None at Time 1; $25 at Time 2. Response rate: For full Time-2 sample (including residents of new subdivision who are not included in the present study), of 930 initial contacts for interviews, 13.7% refused and 16.8% were unresolved (no one at home for eight or more contacts or no English or Spanish spoken). Thus 84.2% of English or Spanish speakers contacted provided interviews, whereas 72.7% of all addresses contacted yielded interviews. At Time 1, the response rate was 74%. At least four residents were interviewed on each of the 59 blocks. Dependent Variables Observed Exterior Conditions: (inventoried by trained raters; alpha = .63) Mean of 11 items with higher values indicating more positive conditions. Items included such things, observable to the pedestrian, as litter on or in front of property, peeling paint, graffiti, broken windows or fixtures, and house, yard or window decorations. Self-Reported Home Repairs & Improvements: (alpha = .86) Mean of 15 items with higher scores indicating more improvements. “During the past 12 months, have any of the following repairs or improvements been made." Examples of items were, exterior: painting on the outside of the house, work on the roofing or gutters; and interior: carpentry, electrical work, and plumbing fixtures. Home Satisfaction: (alpha = .53) Mean of 2 items. Responses were (re)scaled as 1 = none to low home satisfaction, and 10 = high home satisfaction. Items were, "How satisfied are you with your house as a place to live?" and "What best describes the condition of your home/apartment (poor, acceptable, good, excellent)?" Demographic (control) Variables Household income, Home ownership, and Length of residence were used as controls in all multivariate analyses. In addition, race (White, non-Hispanic - other), age, religion (Mormon - other), and number of children in household were examined at the bivariate level and in multivariate models in which the particular demographic variable correlated significantly with the dependent variable. Community-focused Psychological Predictors Each analyzed at individual & block levels. Alphas based on Time 2 raw data. Place Attachment (alpha = .87) Mean of 7 items. Four items tapped respondents' satisfaction and pride with their neighborhood and street block. One item asked how attached the respondent felt to their block, one asked how unhappy they would be if for any reason they had to move, and one item asked whether the respondent would recommend the “neighborhood as a good place for young families to move to now?" Community Confidence Mean of two items (r (590) = .40, p < .000). Respondents indicated "in the past 2 years (or since you moved in), have the general conditions on your block gotten better, stayed about the same, or gotten worse?" Using the same format, respondents also rated their prediction of block conditions for the next two years. Collective Efficacy (based on Sampson, et al., 1997; alpha = .65) Mean of 12 items, including knowing neighbors by name, informal borrowing/loaning with neighbors, speaking with neighbors or government about a local problem, feeling in control of the sidewalk in front of the home, having things in common with neighbors. Predictors (cont.) Perceived Neighborhood Qualities (alpha = .78) Mean of a 7 items. Respondents rated such neighborhood qualities as police protection, housing quality and affordability, availability of child-care, friendliness of neighbors, nearby parks and playgrounds, and the public image of the neighborhood. Perceived Block Quality-of-life Problems (alpha = .56) Mean of 6 items, including "In the past 12 months, has your block had any vacant homes or buildings?" or "…any neighbors who don't keep up their property?" Other items asked respondents to rate how big of problem graffiti, traffic, and loud neighbors are. Perceived Block Crime Problems (alpha = .73) Mean of 5 items. Respondents were asked about incidents occurring within the past 12 months, such as whether "your block had any house or place you suspect drug dealing occurs?" and "…incidents of street robbery or assault?" and "…evidence of gang activity?" Predictors (cont.) Neighbors Improved Property. One item (1 = yes, 0 = no): "In the past 12 months, has your block had any neighbors who have improved their property?" Psychological Proximity to New Subdivision (alpha = .58; r w/ Geographic Proximity (below) = .34 (individual level)/ .71 (block level)) Mean of 4 items. Items included such things as, "Are you aware of the [RP] subdivision?" and "Do you personally know anyone who lives in this new subdivision?" Aerial Proximity to New Subdivision (Reverse of GIS-calculated aerial distances from centroid of subdivision to each block or to each sampled address within 2 blocks). Due to its correlation with Psychological Proximity, this variable was only used in testing interaction effects. In choosing between the two for main effects, Psychological Proximity was thought to potentially have more direct influence on upgrading. North Temple St Navajo St (1130 W) GlendaleSt(1135 W) 800 S 50 800 S IndianaAve (830S) 900 S E mery St (1170 W ) 18 Union Ave (900 S) 07 Hayes Ave (940 S) Park 1100 W 02 IndianaAve (830S) Glendale St (1140 W ) 25 15 17 29 36 Smith's Grocery Genesee Ave (840 S) 05 School 900 S Park Jordan River 58 Brooklyn A ve ( 1025 S) 1200 W Concord St (1250 W ) 1300 W N avajo St (1350 W) 1300 W 1400 W P uebloS t (1440 W) 28 American Ave(960 S) Mead Ave M eadC ri ( 1145W) American Ave 22 61 Emery St (1170 W ) 1520 W 13 Mead Ave ( 980 S) # Dalton Ave (1050 S) 27 24 Fremont Ave (1100 S) California Ave (1350 S) 26 500 ft N OntarioDr Glendale St (1135 W ) 1300 W C oncord St (1250 W ) N avajo St Lexington Ave (1230 S) 32 EmerySt(1170 W) 38 56 ModestoAve(1176S) 34 NewWest Jordan River Poplar Grove T1-T2 Self-Reported .19 - .29 .08 - .19 -.02 - .08 -.13 - -.02 -.23 - -.13 -.34 - -.23 ModestoCir 1300 W IllinoisA ve (1150 S) SantaCruz Cir Illinoisave (1150 S ) 1300 S Genesee Ave (840 S) Hayes Ave American Ave (960 S) 16 LDS Welfare Square 57 Hayes Ave (940 S) Hayes Ave 700 W JeremySt (840 W) 700 S 800 W Senate Cir 49 GoshenSt (1040W) Park 23 Arapahoe Ave (640 S) 50 700 S 800 S 04 33 52 E mery St (1170 W ) 37 Pioneer Cir (620 S ) Post St (940 W ) 01 Wasatch Ave (750 S) 62 Arapahoe Ave (640 S) 1200 W Navajo St (1335 W) WasatchAve(750S) Montgomery St ( 1575W ) Indiana Ave (830 S) GlendaleSt(1140 W) 1200W 1400 W StewartSt (1485W) 60 40 600 S Jake Garn Blvd 51 Arapahoe Ave (640 S) 1300 W 35 P uebloS t (1440 W) Camarilla Cir (1550W) Arapahoe Ave (640 S) 30 500 S ,.- 15 03 65 700 S 800 S Post St(940W) 63 67 600 S 500 S 09 1000 W 45 Gillespie Ave (540 S) 39 Pacifi c Ave (440 S) 53 500 S LDS Church 20 400 S 10 EmeryCir Mobile Park 47 JeremySt (840 W) 500 S 31 14 Tongan United Methodist Church 19 400 S James St ( 580 S ) 44 GoshenSt (1040W) Catholic Church 06 Pacific Ave (440 S ) 48 P uebloS t (1440 W) S tewart S t (1485 W) C heyenne St (1520 W) Montgomery St ( 1575W ) 59 School 900 W 12 School Wright Cir (505 S) 300 S Post St (940 W) Navajo St (1335 W) ConcordSt (1250W) Iola Ave (340 S) 400 S ,-. 80 08 300 S 55 100 S 42 Euclid Ave (140 S) Pierpont Ave (240 S) 15 1100 W Park 400 S 1200 W 43 300 S 41 E mery St (1170 W ) 300 S 1300 W 46 11 1400 W 1500 W PuebloSt (1440W) F oss S t (1541 W) Montgomery St ( 1575W ) S hortridge St (1620 W ) R ea St ( 1690 W ) Redwood Rd (1700 W) ,-. 80 100 S Questar Gas Company .,- Jeremy St (840 W) South Temple St (100 S) Folsom Ave (40 S) Redwood Rd (1700 W) GIS Map of T1-T2 Change in Self-reported Home Repairs and Improvements (All = both interior and exterior) 800 W 900 W Chicago Street Park 21 South Temple (100 S) T1 to T2 Self-Reported All Change 1000 W North Temple St 1300 S W California Ave (1350 S) E S Observed Home Conditions variance explained Between Block Variance 44.0 56.0 Blocks 20% Explained Unexplained Individual Variance 3.0 Individuals 80% 97.0 Explained Unexplained Self-reported Home Repairs & Improvements variance explained Between Block Variance 27.7 Blocks 10% 72.3 Explained Unexplained Individual Variance 9.7 Individuals 90% 90.3 Explained Unexplained Home Satisfaction variance explained Between Block Variance 77.0 Blocks 16% 23.0 Explained Unexplained Individual Variance 15.4 Individuals 84% 84.6 Explained Unexplained HLM: Observed Home Conditions Standard Coefficient Approx. T-ratio Fixed Effect Error d.f. P-value Level 2 (Block): INTERCEPT 0.563 0.008 67.966 52 0.000 T1 Place Attachment -0.067 0.084 -0.797 52 0.429 T1 Block Problems -0.216 0.099 -2.193 52 0.033 T1 Block Crime Problems -0.027 0.062 -0.437 52 0.663 Increased Place Attachment 0.034 0.011 3.180 52 0.003 Increased Block Problems -0.015 0.007 -2.225 52 0.030 Increased Block Crime 0.020 0.010 2.105 52 0.040 Level 1 (Individual): Income 0.002 0.001 2.481 900 0.013 Home Ownership 0.015 0.010 1.461 900 0.144 Ethnicity (White) 0.017 0.008 2.090 900 0.036 Psych. Proximity to Subdiv. 0.017 0.014 1.194 900 0.233 Place Attachment -0.000 0.021 -0.001 900 0.999 Block Problems -0.022 0.019 -1.170 900 0.242 Block Crime Problems 0.003 0.014 0.199 900 0.842 Individual-level Interaction: Years resident X psych. proximity 0.001 0.000 4.035 900 0.000 [Long-term residents have higher correlation betw. psychological proximity to new subdivision & inventoried home conditions than do short-term residents] HLM: Self-reported Home Repairs & Improvements Standard Coefficient Error Fixed Effect Level 2 (Block): INTERCEPT T1 Place Attachment T1 Collective Efficacy Increased Place Attachment 0.385 0.110 0.197 -0.040 0.011 0.112 0.183 0.014 Approx. T-ratio d.f. 36.088 0.979 1.077 -2.925 54 54 54 54 P-value 0.000 0.332 0.287 0.005 [suppression effect due to place attachment’s strong correlation with efficacy] Increased Collective Efficacy Level 1 (Individual): Income Length of Residence Home Ownership Psych. Proximity to Subdiv. Collective Efficacy Block Crime Problems Cross-level Interaction Effect: Place Attachment By Block Aerial Distance 0.033 0.013 0.003 -0.001 0.053 0.058 0.210 0.094 2.498 54 0.016 0.002 0.000 0.020 0.029 0.058 0.024 1.592 -2.585 2.708 2.006 3.591 3.946 902 902 902 902 902 902 0.111 0.010 0.007 0.044 0.001 0.000 -0.016 0.044 0.723 -0.000 0.000 -1.988 -0.356 57 0.051 57 HLM: Home Satisfaction Standard Coefficient Approx. Error T-ratio Fixed Effect d.f. P-value Level 2 (Block): INTERCEPT 7.581 0.059 128.930 54 0.000 T1 Place Attachment 0.993 0.691 1.438 54 0.156 T1 Block Problems -0.716 0.647 -1.107 54 0.274 Increased Place Attachment 0.449 0.076 5.914 54 0.000 Increased Block Problems -0.126 0.061 -2.058 54 0.044 Level 1 (Individual): Income 0.043 0.012 3.740 904 0.000 Length of Residence 0.010 0.003 3.353 904 0.001 Home Ownership 0.433 0.129 3.360 904 0.001 Place Attachment 1.909 0.270 7.068 904 0.000 Block Problems 0.139 0.224 0.622 904 0.534 Neighborhood Qualities* 0.066 0.032 2.089 904 0.036 * police protection, housing quality & affordability, availability of child-care, friendliness of neighbors, nearby parks & playgrounds, public image of neighborhood Conclusions ► ► ► ► ► ► Geographic patterns (GIS) suggest that the intervention had mixed results. But psychological proximity to the new subdivision was positively related to objective exterior conditions and self-reported home repairs and improvements, esp. for long-term residents. Place attachment, block problems, collective efficacy, home ownership, income, length of residence, and ethnicity all were predictive of either objective or self-reported upgrading and home satisfaction. Both block and individual-level effects were significant in each HLM. Community confidence was not significantly related to upgrading. Confirms importance in urban neighborhood research and policy of: psychological factors: e.g., place attachment, perceived crime & disorder problems, collective efficacy multi-level analysis, in general, & street block level of analysis, in particular.