Personal tools
 
Sections
Goals
Clean and Sufficient Water Preservation of Wild Lands, Habitat & Biodiversity
Indicator Maps
Goals
Climate Protection Responsible Land Use Sustainable Transportation
Indicator Maps
Goals
Food Security Health Equity Income Equity
Indicator Maps
Goals
Healthy Living Choices Quality Educational Opportunities
Indicator Maps
You are here:   Home → Social Environment → Neighborhood Social Cohesion
Document Actions

Indicator: Neighborhood Social Cohesion

Data and Data Discussion provided by Communities Count

Figure 1: Average Level of Neighborhood Social Cohesion King County, 1999, 2001 & 2004

Figure 2: Percent of Adults Who See High Social Cohesion (Trust and Control) in Their Neighborhoods, King County, 1999, 2001, 2004

Figure 3: Average Level of Social Cohesion by Age, Race, Relationship Status, Education, and Income

view full size
Upstream Indicators
  •   Income Distribution --- In the two decades between 1979 and 1999, there was a shift of income away from the four lower income groups to the highest income group. In King County in 2004, the richest 20% of the population received more than ten times the income of the poorest 20%.  (view data graph)
  •   Land Use Mix --- The data for this indicator was taken from a snapshot study of King County.  
  •   Social Support --- There are no significant differences in average social support level by region and no significant changes between 1999, 2001, and 2004.  (view data graph)
  •   Walkability Index --- In 2005, King County finished a major study called “Land Use, Transportation, Air Quality and Health” (which led to the current program HealthScape), that measured how specific land use and transportation actions affect air quality, mobility, congestion, and public health. No trend data are yet available.   (view data graph)
  •   Voter Turnout --- General elections always have higher participation compared with primaries while presidential elections (2000 and 2004) provide the highest turnout among voters.  (view data graph)
more info
Downstream Indicators
  •   Freedom from Discrimination --- Indicator information based on three surveys conducted in 1999, 2001 and 2004. There were no significant changes over the three survey years for the county.  (view data graph)
  •   Consumer Environmental Behavior --- The 2006 Environmental Behavior Index survey of King County residents indicated that purchasing of Compact Fluorescent Lightbulbs (CFLs) climbed since the prior survey in 2004, though choosing less toxic cleaning products and considering the environmental impacts of purchasing decisions was steady or declining against the 2004 survey results.  (view data graph)
more info
Related Goals

Frequent interaction and inclusion among neighbors can generate a stronger sense of community and belonging. If a person feels strongly connected to the place they live, they will be more compelled to engage themselves civically and economically on a local level.

more info

Sustainability Snapshot:

Social cohesion is a measure of trust. It is the foundation for cooperation and mutually supportive relationships in our communities. In a diverse community, it is the product of nurturing social networks between both socially homogeneous and socially heterogeneous groups. Not all areas of King County enjoy the same degree of social cohesion.

Sustainability Trend:

There were no significant changes in social cohesion levels between 2001 and 2004.

Data Discussion

The Indicator Defined

Average level of neighborhood social cohesion. Cohesion was measured by asking King County adults 5 questions about trust in their neighborhood and 5 questions about the likelihood that their neighbors could be counted on to intervene in problem situations. Regarding trust participants were asked how strongly they agreed or disagreed with the statements including: this is a close-knit neighborhood, people in this neighborhood can be trusted, people around here are usually willing to trust their neighbors, people in this neighborhood share the same values, and people in this neighborhood get along. 5 additional questions about the likelihood that their neighbors could be counted on to intervene in problem situations were asked, and participants rated how likely or unlikely their neighbors would intervene if children were skipping school, spray painting or showing disrespect to an adult, or if a fight broke out in front of their house or the nearest fire station was threatened with closure.

Data Interpretation/Evaluation

Answers were added from the ten questions to create a social cohesion scale with a possible score between 10 (Low) and 50 (High). In 2004 the average (mean) social cohesion score for adults in King County was 38. There were no significant changes in social cohesion levels between 2001 and 2004. (Figure 1)

The social cohesion levels reported in 2004 by residents of East Region (39.6) were significantly higher than by residents of South Region (37.4), Seattle (37.5) and King County (38).

People who are in the youngest age group (18-24 years) see less social cohesion in their neighborhoods than older residents. (Figure 3) People who are white see more social cohesion in their neighborhoods than people of other races. People who have a couple relationships (either married or unmarried) see higher social cohesion than those who are separated, divorced, widowed or never married. People who have completed college report higher levels of cohesion than others with less education. People with incomes of $50,000 or higher report higher levels of social cohesion in their neighborhoods.

Data Source and Limitations

The neighborhood social cohesion measures were accessed from Communities Count (www.communitiescount.org). The original data are from the King County Community Health Survey, 1999, 2001 and 2004, which used questions on trust and informal social control from the study, “Neighborhoods and Violent Crime: A Multilevel Study of Collective Efficacy” (Robert J. Sampson, Stephen W. Raudenbush, and Felton).

The limitations of an English-only telephone survey include the following: a) people who do not have a telephone are missed, b) people who do not speak English do not participate, c) people who have less education and lower incomes tend to be under-represented.

collapse all