A RT I C L E

SENSE OF COMMUNITY
IN NEIGHBORHOODS
AS A MULTI-LEVEL CONSTRUCT
Sharon Kingston
University of Rhode Island
Roger Mitchell
Brown University
Paul Florin and John Stevenson
University of Rhode Island
■

Sense of community is a compelling construct that allows psychologists to

examine fundamental questions about how individuals are connected to and
influenced by their most important social settings. This investigation uses an
existing database of 2,409 residents of 21 neighborhoods in a Northeastern city
to examine sense of community at the neighborhood level. The investigation
used a cross-levels program to examine whether sense of community can be
detected at the neighborhood level. The investigation also tested the strength of
the relationship of both neighborhood-level variables (i.e., physical attributes
and presence of a grassroots neighborhood association) and individual-level
variables (i.e., income and education) on neighborhood-level sense of
community. Residents of the same neighborhood were more similar to one
another than to residents of a different neighborhood on both the neighborhood-
related variables and income and education. When variance attributable to the
personal resources of income and education were removed, intraclass
correlations for neighborhood-related attitudes (i.e., perceptions of neighborhood
climate and perceptions of the ability of neighborhood residents to influence
neighborhood conditions) remained significant at an alpha level of .05.
However, neighborhood-related behavior (i.e., neighboring behavior and
participation in a community organization) was no more similar to residents of
the same neighborhood than to residents of a different neighborhood. Neither the
presence of a grassroots neighborhood association nor the physical characteristics

Correspondence to: Sharon Kingston, 3407 Fort Independence St., Bronx, NY 10463. E-mail:
PreEvalSK@aol.com

JOURNAL OF COMMUNITY PSYCHOLOGY, Vol. 27, No. 6, 681–694 (1999)

© 1999 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. CCC 0090-4392/99/060681-14
682 • Journal of Community Psychology, November 1999

of neighborhoods examined in the investigation were significantly correlated

with a sense of community. © 1999 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Sense of community remains an increasingly compelling theme, in part, because it draws

us into fundamental questions about how individuals are connected to and influenced by
their most important social settings. It is an important construct for researchers con-
cerned with how individuals relate to their communities. Psychological sense of commu-
nity has been associated with a variety of prosocial behaviors, such as support for public
school taxes (Davidson & Cotter, 1993), political participation (Davidson & Cotter, 1989),
and taking local action (Chavis & Wandersman, 1990), as well as with individual measures
of well-being (e.g., Davidson & Cotter, 1991; Jason & Kobayashi, 1995; Pretty, Andrews, &
Collett, 1994; Unger, Wandersman, & Hallman, 1992). At the systems level, investigators
have characterized neighborhoods and communities in terms of the degree to which they
display a sense of community (Buckner, 1988; Sampson, Raudenbush, & Earls, 1997).
Most recently, investigators have expanded beyond traditional neighborhood settings to
examine sense of community within religious organizations (Maton & Salem, 1995), ele-
mentary schools (Battistich, Solomon, Kim, Watson, & Schaps, 1995), high schools (Roy-
al & Rossi, 1996), college environments (Lounsbury & DeNeui, 1995), and treatment pro-
grams (Bishop, Chertok, & Jason, 1997). Sitting at the cusp between individuals and
settings, sense of community has become a general rubric encompassing different oper-
ationalizations that vary in their usefulness in addressing different kinds of questions.
The fact that this construct can be construed at multiple levels and in multiple con-
texts adds particular analytic and conceptual complexity to the consideration of sense of
community in neighborhood-level research and intervention. First, the degree to which
a neighborhood-level sense of community exists at all may be an important initial ques-
tion to be addressed before proceeding with plans for an intervention. Weisenfeld
(1996) has argued that our idealized notions of “sense of community” may cause us
to overlook the degree of diversity in perspectives that actually exists, and make un-
warranted assumptions about the degree to which a sense of community exists within
particular communities. Second, individual-level predictors of sense of community may be
inadequate for addressing issues related to neighborhood-level intervention. Such indi-
vidual-level variables [e.g., need for affiliation (Davidson, Cotter, & Stovall, 1991)] may
not fully illustrate the kinds of community-level interventions possible (e.g., changes in
physical space). Similarly, relationships at the individual level may not always be present
when one is looking at aggregate neighborhood-level relationships.
The purpose of this article is to address some of these questions by analyzing an ex-
isting data set of 2,409 individuals in 21 neighborhood areas in a Northeastern city. First,
we will use cross-levels analyses to examine whether elements of sense of community can
be detected at the neighborhood level. Second, we will examine whether neighborhood-
level sense of community is associated with both neighborhood-level variables (i.e., phys-
ical attributes, presence of community-based organizations) and individual-level variables
(i.e., education, income).

SENSE OF COMMUNITY IN NEIGHBORHOODS

AS A MULTILEVEL PHENOMENON
At the same time that there has been increased interest in the role that sense of com-
munity in neighborhoods may play in serving as a protective factor against individual and
 Neighborhood-Level Sense of Community • 683

social problems (Coie & Jacobs, 1993; Jason & Kobayashi, 1995; Pretty, Andrews, & Col-
lett, 1994), there has also been debate as to whether late-20th century urban neighbor-
hoods still provide a sense of community. Several social scientists have characterized ur-
ban dwellers as having “portable personal communities” made up of social networks
which are detached from any specific locality (Crump, 1977 as cited in Glynn, 1986; Fis-
cher, 1976, 1982; Nisbit, 1962 as cited in Glynn, 1986; Wellman, 1988). Such factors as
increased urbanization, the growth of centralized bureaucratic and governmental struc-
tures and increasing imbalance between local and centralized structures have been im-
plicated in the “decline” of neighborhood community (Glynn, 1986). This debate has im-
portant intervention implications, however, because there are compelling arguments
that the design of one’s intervention should depend upon the level of neighborhood
identity and social interaction present in the neighborhood or community (Israel, Check-
oway, Schulz, & Zimmerman, 1994). For example, Warren (1978) found that resident use
of formal and informal resources was clearly linked to neighborhood type, suggesting
that capacity-building work in neighborhoods with low-levels of neighborhood identity,
and social interaction required different kinds of intervention strategies.
However, when an aggregation of residents’ responses is used to infer a neighbor-
hood-level variable, one must be careful that one is measuring a meaningful neighbor-
hood-level construct. One approach is to use cross-level analysis techniques that look at
the degree to which there is consensus among residents about neighborhood conditions
such as the degree of neighboring, and feeling of membership. In a study of block-group
residents, for example, Coultin, Korbin, and Su (1996) found a significant degree of sim-
ilarity in ratings of neighborhood quality, but not on ratings of social interaction among
block-group residents. Although this measure of neighborhood interaction showed high
reliability for individual-level responses (Cronbach’s alpha 5 .85), the disagreement
among residents of the same block group, relative to the total variation in the sample,
was remarkably high, suggesting the inappropriateness of aggregating individual per-
ceptions in this case to derive neighborhood-level measures. The authors conclude “It
may be more appropriate to think of neighborhoods as presenting opportunities for in-
teraction as a function of their spatial qualities, their institutions, and make these the fo-
cus of measurement in the future” (p. 25). Thus, further insight into whether elements
of sense of community actually represent a neighborhood-level construct can be exam-
ined through analyses such as intraclass correlations, which indicate the degree of asso-
ciation between scores of individuals within a group (in this case, residents of a particu-
lar neighborhood) on variables of interest. In addition, some programs can look at how
relationships are changed by statistically removing the effects of individual level covari-
ates (Kenny, 1985).

CORRELATES OF NEIGHBORHOOD-LEVEL
SENSE OF COMMUNITY
Research on the predictors of neighborhood sense of community has focused to a large
extent on individual-level predictors of the individual-level sense of community (e.g.,
Davidson, Cotter, & Stovall, 1991) with a few exceptions (e.g., Sagy, Stern, & Krakover,
1996; Sampson, Raudenbush, & Earls, 1997). Buckner (1988), however, suggests that fu-
ture research focus on determining the extent to which sense of community is influ-
enced by environmental as well as individual variables to determine the degree to which
sense of community can be influenced by system-level variables (Buckner, 1988). In this
684 • Journal of Community Psychology, November 1999

study, we will be examining the effects of individual-level variables (i.e., income and ed-
ucation) as well as environmental aspects of the neighborhood (e.g., physical-space at-
tributes, presence of neighborhood-focused community organizations) on neighbor-
hood-level sense of community. Knowledge of the factors that are correlated with sense
of community is an initial step toward determining what factors lead to the development
of a sense of community and to the development of interventions which might increase
a sense of community.

Individual Predictors of Neighborhood Level

Sense of Community
A neighborhood sense of community can be reported by an individual, but this does not
guarantee that the sense of community arises out of some aspect of the neighborhood it-
self. An individual’s perception of sense of community may be determined by individual
characteristics (e.g., need for affiliation) or the level of resources they have available (such
as socioeconomic status) rather than environmental factors. Neighborhood satisfaction
has been found to be positively correlated with income and years of formal education
(Bannes, Bonauito, & Ercolani, 1991; Miller, Tsembergis, Malia, & Grega, 1980 as cited in
Cook, 1988; Schwirian & Schwirian, 1993). In a study of Chicago neighborhoods (Samp-
son, Raudenbush, & Earls, 1997), individual SES was significantly related to neighborhood-
level measures of “collective self-efficacy” (i.e., informal social control and social-cohesion
scales), although other neighborhood-level variables still had effects. Such an examination
is particularly important when attempting to understand neighborhood-related attitudes
and behaviors because neighborhoods tend to be composed of individuals of similar so-
cioeconomic status. If community psychologists really hope to increase the sense of com-
munity present in a neighborhood, they must know whether the phenomenon is best ex-
plained in terms of individual characteristics, or neighborhood-level constructs.

Environmental Predictors of Sense of Community

One domain of neighborhood-level variables that might influence sense of community
are the physical attributes of a neighborhood. Urban planners and social scientists have
advocated the idea that physical aspects, particularly the built environment of a geo-
graphic locale can influence the attitudes and behaviors of its residents (Hallman, 1984;
Newman, 1972; Plas & Lewis, 1996, Rapoport, 1982). In 1929, Clarence Perry developed
a plan for urban development that advocated the neighborhood as the building block
of cities. Such physical attributes as the availability of open spaces for socialization (e.g.,
parks), arterial boundaries to support local interaction, and local shopping areas, are pre-
sumed to foster a sense of community and satisfaction with one’s neighborhood (Hall-
man, 1984; Sale, 1980). However, little has been done empirically to link such factors
with neighborhood sense of community.
Another domain of neighborhood-level variables that might influence sense of com-
munity are the social/organizational attributes of a neighborhood. Increasingly, the or-
ganizational capacity of neighborhood institutions has been cited as a key target for in-
creasing a community’s readiness for self-directed change (Center for Substance Abuse
Prevention, 1997). Local organizations can increase sense of community by allowing lo-
cal residents to increase their skills, and to strengthen their connection with other resi-
dents. Even residents who do not participate directly may be affected by seeing that vol-
 Neighborhood-Level Sense of Community • 685

unteer efforts have an effect. The presence of a voluntary group dedicated to fostering
positive conditions specifically in the neighborhood could conceivably lead to a greater
sense of community among residents.
In summary then, the purpose of this research is to use existing data to begin to ex-
plore the presence of elements of a sense of community as neighborhood-level con-
structs, and if present, to explore whether these constructs are associated with individ-
ual- and neighborhood-level variables. This represents an attempt to extend previous
work in sense of community into cross-level analysis. An underlying goal of cross-level re-
search is to develop theories and research designs that allow the researcher to consider
issues of level without incorrectly specifying the level at which phenomena occur
(Rousseau, 1985). Shinn (1988) has proposed that this type of multi- or cross-level analy-
sis should comprise the majority of community psychology research. Investigating the re-
lationships between individual characteristics and extra-individual environments not only
allows community psychologists to better understand the phenomena they are studying
but allows psychologists to determine how these relationships can be used to impact on
well-being (Shinn, 1988).

METHOD
Design
Secondary analyses were performed on data collected as part of an evaluation of a 5-year
community-based demonstration project designed to reduce alcohol and other drug
abuse in a Northeastern city. A random sample of residents in each of 21 neighborhood
areas were contacted through a random-digit dialing procedure, and asked to participate
in a structured interview regarding perceptions of neighborhood conditions. Appropri-
ate respondents were identified as individuals age 18 or older who had lived in their com-
munity for at least a year.
Residents of a Northeastern city (2,409; at least 100 residents from each of 21 dif-
ferent neighborhoods in the city) were interviewed by telephone during the months of
October, November, and December, 1993. The neighborhood designations used in the
investigation generally matched the official neighborhood boundaries used for city plan-
ning purposes (n 5 25 neighborhoods), except in four cases where neighborhood areas
were combined for project intervention purposes.

Participants
Households (4,757) were randomly chosen and contacted; of those, 2,409 households
completed the interview and 2,348 refused to participate, could not participate due to
hearing difficulties, or terminated the conversation in the midst of the interview. This
constitutes a participation rate of 50.6%. It is unknown if there is any systematic bias
among individuals who chose not to participate in the survey.
Almost two-thirds (63.2%) of the participants were women and 36.4% were men.
Over one-third (34.6%) reported that at least one person under the age of 18 was living
in their household. The mean age of participants was 46 years and the median age of
participants was 43 years old. One fifth of the participants (20.4%) had not graduated
from high school, 31.4% were high school graduates, 20.4% had completed “some col-
lege” or trade school, 16.9% had completed college and 10.8% had at least some post-
686 • Journal of Community Psychology, November 1999

college education. As for employment rate, 42.7% of participants were employed full-
time, 10.9% were employed part-time, 18.6% were unemployed, 23.9% were retired, and
3.6% were disabled. When compared to the 1990 census, unemployed, disabled, and re-
tired individuals are over-represented. This is likely due to the fact that people who are
not working were more likely to be home when the survey interviewers called.
The median annual income range of participants was $15,000 to $24,999. The tele-
phone survey underrepresented individuals in the higher income ranges. This under-
representation of higher income households may be due to the large number of retired
and unemployed individuals interviewed for the survey.
The sample was comprised of 11.3% African Americans, 3% Asians, 5.2% Latinos,
1.4% Native Americans, 72.8% White, and 4.7% of individuals who classified themselves
as “Other.” A small minority (1.6%) of participants refused to respond to this question.
This telephone survey under-represents minorities. According to the 1990 census,
African Americans represented approximately 14% of the population in this city, Asians
represented approximately 6% and Latinos represented approximately 16% (Bureau of
the Census, 1990). The under-representation of minorities may be explained by several
factors: a) members of minority groups live in larger households than Whites, b) mi-
norities tend to be over-represented among low-income groups and low-income groups
tend to participate in telephone surveys at a lower rate than middle-income groups, and
c) members of certain groups such as Latinos and Asians may have been unable to par-
ticipate due to limited English skills.

Measure s
Sense of community has been operationalized in a variety of ways (Bishop, Chertok, & Ja-
son, 1997; Buckner, 1988; Davidson & Cotter, 1991). Buckner’s (1988) neighborhood co-
hesion instrument tries to synthesize elements of psychological sense of community, at-
traction to neighborhood, and social interaction. McMillan and Chavis’ (1986) definition
of a sense of community involves four critical aspects: a) Membership: a feeling of be-
longing or of sharing a sense of potential relatedness, b) Influence: a sense of mattering
and making a difference to a group, c) Integration and Fulfillment of Needs: feeling that
members needs will be met by the resources received through membership in the group,
and d) Shared Emotional Connection: the commitment and belief that members have
shared and will share history, common places, time together, and similar experiences.
The scales used in this study capture several elements of a sense of community: a)
perceptions of neighborhood climate (i.e., a feeling of membership); b) perceptions of
residents’ control over neighborhood conditions (i.e., influence); and c) neighboring
behavior (i.e., social interaction). In addition, a measure of participation in community
organizations was included. Overall, the four scales used in this investigation provide
measures of neighborhood-related attitudes and neighborhood-related behaviors.

Neighborhood-related attitude scales. The Perception of Neighborhood Climate Scale is a 5-

item scale that asks respondents to rate statements about their neighborhood climate.
The scale was adapted for use at the neighborhood level from a scale designed to rate
city blocks (Chavis, Florin, Rich, & Wandersman, 1987). This scale includes the items:
“My neighborhood is a place I feel at home in,” and “My neighborhood is a place where
people feel a sense of community togetherness.” In this sample, the Cronbach’s Alpha
coefficient was .83.
 Neighborhood-Level Sense of Community • 687

The Perception of the Ability of Neighborhood Residents to Influence Neighbor-

hood Conditions Scale is a 5-item scale that asks respondents to rate the amount of con-
trol neighborhood residents working together, can have on neighborhood conditions
such as crime and social relations among residents. The scale was developed specifically
for this study. In this sample, the Cronbach’s Alpha coefficient was .89.

Neighborhood-related behavior scales. The Self-Reported Neighboring Behavior Scale is a 5-

item scale which asks respondents to report the number of neighbors with whom they had
engaged in several neighboring behaviors. The scale was adapted for use at the neigh-
borhood level from a scale designed to rate city blocks (Chavis, Florin, Rich, & Wanders-
man, 1987). An example of a neighboring behavior included in this scale is “lend a neigh-
bor some food or a tool.” In this sample, the Cronbach’s Alpha coefficient was .80.
The Self-Reported Participation in Community Organizations is a single item devel-
oped by the Community Research and Services Team. It asks the respondent how many
hours he or she spends involved in any kind of voluntary community activities.

Measuring the Neighborhood Characteristics

The social institution of interest in this study was a voluntary neighborhood association.
Neighborhoods were classified according to whether or not they have a neighborhood
association focused on local neighborhood conditions. A neighborhood was judged to
have a neighborhood association if all of the following conditions were met:

The association is known to at least one department of the city government that deals
with grassroots neighborhood groups.
The association was known to at least 10% of neighborhood residents who partici-
pated in the interview that was used in this study.
The association is a multipurpose organization (not just a crime watch) concerned
with local neighborhood conditions.
The association is responsible for a geographic area.
The association is composed primarily of volunteers (has fewer than five paid-staff
members).
The association is small scale (has fewer than 200 active members and an annual
budget of less than $100,000).

The criteria for a neighborhood association were adapted from the Block Booster Proj-
ect in New York City in 1987 (Chavis, Florin, Rich, & Wandersman, 1987).
The physical aspects of neighborhoods that were of interest in this study are taken
from the plan for urban neighborhoods developed by Clarence Perry in 1929 (Hallman,
1984; Sale, 1980). Perry attempted to design urban neighborhoods that would foster a
sense of community. Perry’s design included the following major points:

Boundaries—The neighborhood should be bounded by arterial streets or other

boundaries that would discourage through traffic in the neighborhood.
Open spaces—The neighborhood should contain parks or other recreational spaces.
Local shops—One or more local shopping districts should be present in the neigh-
borhood.
688 • Journal of Community Psychology, November 1999

All residents of a particular neighborhood shared these neighborhood characteristics re-

gardless of personal resources or the type of housing in which they resided. Each neigh-
borhood in the city was rated based on whether the neighborhood contained one or
more of these three characteristics. Information on whether a particular neighborhood
contained these characteristics was obtained from city and state government agencies.
Ratings could range from 0 to 3.

Analyses
The Levels Program developed by David Kenny was used to perform the data analysis
(Kenny, 1985). This program performs intraclass correlations (ICCs) for each variable of
interest. The ICC is evaluated for significant difference from zero with an F-test pro-
viding the test for nonindependence. A significant intraclass correlation indicates a sig-
nificant degree of association between scores of individuals within a group (in this case,
residents of a particular neighborhood) on variables of interest. The ICC may be inter-
preted as the variance accounted for by group membership. For example, for a variable
with an ICC of .25, group membership would be interpreted as accounting for 25% of
the variance in scores on that variable. The program is also capable of statistically re-
moving covariates such as income and education, and calculates correlation matrices of
the variables using both scores that have been corrected for variance attributable to the
covariates and uncorrected scores (Kerman, 1993).
To investigate whether individuals residing in the same neighborhood have similar
scores on neighborhood-related attitudes and neighborhood-related behaviors, intraclass
correlations were calculated for these variables using neighborhood residence as the in-
dependent variable.
The intraclass correlations were recalculated after controlling for income and edu-
cation to determine if shared variance attributable to neighborhood residence would re-
main once the effect of personal resources had been removed.
Further analyses were performed to investigate which neighborhood conditions cor-
related with neighborhood-related attitudes and behaviors. The relationship between
neighborhood-related attitudes and neighborhood-related behaviors with the presence
of a neighborhood association was investigated by performing point-biserial correlations
using the presence or absence of a neighborhood association in a neighborhood as the
independent variable, and scores on the two neighborhood-related attitude and two
neighborhood related behavior scales as dependent variables.

Table 1. Intraclass Correlations for Neighborhood-Related Variables and Individual Resourc e s

Intraclass F ratio
Variable Correlation (df 20,1660)

Neighborhood climate .032* 3.61

Perception of control .023* 2.91
Neighboring behavior .011* 1.90
Participation in community organizations .009* 1.74
Income .111* 10.94
Education .123* 12.18

*Statistically significant at p 5 .05.

 Neighborhood-Level Sense of Community • 689

Table 2. Intraclass Correlations for Neighborhood-Related Variables With Variance

Attributable to Individual-Level Resources Removed

Intraclass F ratio
Variable Correlation (df 20,1660)

Neighborhood climate .014* 2.17

Perception of control .026* 3.17
Neighboring behavior .005 1.41
Participation in community organizations 2.001 1.41

*Statistically significant at p 5 .05.

The relationship between neighborhood-related attitudes and behaviors with the

physical environment of the neighborhood was investigated by performing Pearson cor-
relations using the neighborhood scores on the physical conditions scale as the inde-
pendent variable, and scores on the two neighborhood related attitude and two neigh-
borhood related behavior scales as dependent variables.

RESULTS
Intraclass correlations were used to test for group-level variance among residents of the
same neighborhood for each of the neighborhood-related variables: perceptions of
neighborhood climate, perceptions of residents’ control over neighborhood conditions,
self-reported neighboring behavior, and self-reported participation in community orga-
nizations. Intraclass correlations were also performed on the two measures of individual
resources used as covariates: income and education. Residents of the same neighborhood
were more similar to one another than to residents of other neighborhoods on all six
variables. Intraclass correlations ranged from .009 for participation in community orga-
nizations to .123 for education. The amount of variance accounted for in the neighbor-
hood-related variables by neighborhood residence was small. Table 1 provides the intra-
class correlation and F-ratio for each of the variables. All of the intraclass correlations
were significant at an alpha level of .05.
Given the existence of these constructs at the neighborhood level, to what extent are
they associated with individual-level resources (i.e., income and education) and neigh-
borhood-level variables (i.e., physical space, community-based organizations)? When the
variance attributable to the personal resources of income and education were removed,
intraclass correlations for neighborhood climate and perception of residents’ control
over neighborhood conditions were significant at an alpha level of .05. Self-reported
neighboring behavior and self-reported participation in community organizations were
no more similar among residents of the same neighborhood than to residents of a dif-
ferent neighborhood. Table 2 presents the intraclass correlation and an F-ratio for each
of the variables. Thus, neighborhood climate and control remained detectable as neigh-
borhood-level constructs even after controlling for the effects of individual-level re-
sources.
Is the presence of a small-scale neighborhood organization dedicated to improving
neighborhood conditions associated with greater neighborhood-level sense of commu-
nity? Six of the twenty-one neighborhoods were rated as having a neighborhood associ-
ation meeting the criteria described in the results. Point-biserial correlations were per-
690 • Journal of Community Psychology, November 1999

formed using the presence or absence of a neighborhood association as the indepen-

dent variable and the four neighborhood-related variables as dependent variables. The
presence of a neighborhood association was positively, but nonsignificantly correlated
with perceptions of neighborhood climate (rpb 5 .32); perceptions of residents’ control
over neighborhood conditions (rpb 5 .30); self-reported neighboring behavior (rpb 5
.07), and hours of involvement in community organizations (rpb 5 .24).
Are the physical characteristics of a neighborhood associated with greater neigh-
borhood-level sense of community? Neighborhoods were rated on a scale from 0 to 3
based on aspects of the physical characteristics of the neighborhoods. There was very lit-
tle variance among neighborhoods on two of the three of variables (i.e., open space,
shopping areas), so the analysis was performed using only the presence of arterial streets
(7 of the 21 neighborhoods were bounded by arterial streets). Point-biserial correlations
were calculated using the presence or absence of arterial streets as the independent vari-
able, and the four neighborhood-related variables as dependent variables. These corre-
lations were not statistically significant at an alpha level of .05. There were no significant
correlations of presence of arterial streets with any of the neighborhood variables: per-
ceptions of neighborhood climate (rpb 5 .12); perceptions of residents’ control over
neighborhood conditions (rpb 5 .06); self-reported neighboring behavior (rpb 5 .03);
and hours of involvement in community organizations (rpb 52.05).

DISCUSSION
Neighborhood-based interventions that seek to increase a sense of community as a cat-
alyst for citizen involvement in addressing social problems will be more likely to succeed
if they examine the robustness of the construct in their particular settings, as well as the
full range of individual and environmental factors that might contribute to its develop-
ment. In this study, we have illustrated how data on community residents can be exam-
ined to look for neighborhood-level effects. Indeed, the results of this study support the
idea that urban neighborhoods may act as a locus of at least some aspects of a sense of
community. Ratings of neighborhood climate, perceptions of control over neighborhood
conditions, neighboring behavior, and participation in community organizations were
more similar among people living in the same neighborhood than among people living
in different neighborhoods. Such neighborhoods did, indeed, exhibit distinct and co-
herent profiles regarding the level of neighboring, and the level of control over neigh-
borhood conditions that residents perceived.
What contributes to the emergence of distinct climates in different neighborhoods?
At the environmental level, the possibility of finding significant relationships may have
been hampered by the sensitivity of the measurement instruments used here, as well as
by the level of variance in this sample. For example, neighborhood-related attitudes and
behaviors were not significantly correlated with the presence of a neighborhood associ-
ation dedicated to improving neighborhood conditions. This finding may be due, in
part, to the fact that the definition of voluntary organizations used in this study was
rather narrowly construed. Only relatively small-scale organizations dedicated specifical-
ly to improving conditions within a neighborhood were included. It appeared plausible
that there would be a relationship between neighborhood-related attitudes and behav-
iors and organizations explicitly committed to fostering desirable neighborhood condi-
tions. Such organizations might increase the commitment of volunteers to be attentive
to and interested in neighborhood issues, strengthen the capacity of individuals to ad-
 Neighborhood-Level Sense of Community • 691

dress problems in their informal neighborhood networks as a result of the skills they have
developed as volunteers, and increase the likelihood that outside resources might be
made available to address local issues. However, a broader array of voluntary organiza-
tions might be examined to explore the impact of community-based organizations on
neighborhood sense of community.
Neighborhood-related attitudes and behaviors were not significantly correlated with
one physical characteristic (arterial streets which bound the neighborhood) hypothe-
sized to foster a sense of community. However, when considering these results it is im-
portant to note that the neighborhoods in the city used in this investigation are very sim-
ilar in the physical characteristics included in this investigation. More complex ratings
of physical characteristics have been developed to assess block characteristics relevant to
fear of crime (Perkins & Taylor, 1996), and such work might be extended to examine
sense of community.
Despite the results of the present investigation, the relationship between physical
conditions and neighborhood-related attitudes and behaviors is a promising topic for
community psychology research. Presently, a number of architectural and urban plan-
ning projects are underway based on the assumption that certain physical characteristics
can be used to foster a sense of community. This approach is sometimes referred to as
the “new town” movement in urban planning literature (Plas & Lewis, 1996). In a qual-
itative study of Seaside, Florida, one of these “new towns,” a majority of residents spon-
taneously referred to one or more of the components of a sense of community (as defined
by McMillan and Chavis) in describing their middle-class resort community. Further,
many residents mentioned that the physical aspects of the town were at least partially re-
sponsible for engendering a sense of community. The presence of recreational spaces, a
town grocery store, and various town features designed to discourage automotive traffic
in the town were included in residents’ discussions of the community fostering physical
characteristics (Plas & Lewis, 1996).
How do individual-level variables contribute to the development of neighborhood
level constructs? The cross-level analyses used here allowed for statistically controlling for
the effects of individuals’ income and education. The intraclass correlations for neigh-
borhood attitudes (i.e., ratings of neighborhood climate and perception of control over
neighborhood problems), though small, remained significant after the effects of income
and education were removed. Such consensus among members of a neighborhood sug-
gests that there should be continued examination of environmental properties of the
neighborhood that might contribute to such climates.
However, regarding neighborhood-related behaviors (i.e., neighboring behavior,
participation in community organizations), the intraclass correlations were no longer sta-
tistically significant when income and education levels were statistically controlled. To
what extent do individual-level resources (i.e., income and education) influence either
opportunities or motivation for participation, or ratings of the quality of neighboring?
In examining several hundred Chicago neighborhoods, Sampson, Raudenbush, & Earls
(1997) found that individual-level SES, as well as a neighborhood-level measure of col-
lective disadvantage (i.e., an index of percentage below poverty level, degree of residen-
tial instability, etc.) was predictive of collective self-efficacy (i.e., a measure of social co-
hesion and informal social control). This suggests that there is the need to continue to
look at the degree to which sense of community is influenced at both the individual and
neighborhood level by the socioeconomic resources that are available. There is a need
to determine whether an absence of these resources (and perhaps, other measures of in-
692 • Journal of Community Psychology, November 1999

dividual-level resources) limits the potential effect of other neighborhood-level factors

on the development of the sense of community.
The emergence of distinct neighborhood profiles occurred in spite of several poten-
tial limitations to this study. First, there were issues related to sampling and measurement
in the phone survey. For example, the wording of the “neighboring” scale asked about the
resident’s own experience of neighboring, rather than his or her perceptions of neigh-
boring more generally across their neighborhood. This may have resulted in more idio-
syncratic responses than if respondents had been asked to categorize their neighborhood
as a whole. In addition, the low response rate to the survey may have resulted in some un-
determined, but systematic bias in the estimation of neighborhood-level perceptions.
Second, the examination of a small number of neighborhoods in one community
may have restricted the range of variance in the variables under examination, thereby
underestimating the strength of relationships that might potentially exist. Certainly, the
homogeneity of the neighborhoods with regard to the physical-space characteristics un-
der consideration here made it less likely that significant relationships might be found.
Finally, there is the difficulty in being certain that we specified the “correct” neigh-
borhood boundaries, an issue that arises in all neighborhood research. Official neigh-
borhood boundaries do not always coincide with residents’ perceptions of the bound-
aries of “their neighborhood.” Researchers have used a variety of methods of defining
neighborhoods—asking residents to define their own neighborhood boundaries, map-
ping social interaction of residents on a spatial grid, and selecting small, but standard-
ized, statistical definitions such as census tracts, zip codes, and block groups (Coulton,
Korbin & Su, 1996). This study utilized neighborhood boundaries generally conforming
to municipal planning boundaries, a reasonable approach given the context of evaluat-
ing an intervention directed at these neighborhood entities.
In conclusion, this study attempted to contribute to the empirical study of the level
at which a sense of community operates. Both neighborhood-related attitudes and be-
haviors were investigated to determine if residents of a particular neighborhood report-
ed similar attitudes and behaviors after the variance attributed to the individual resources
of income and education were statistically removed. The study also attempted to begin
to investigate which aspects of neighborhoods (in this case, voluntary neighborhood as-
sociations and certain physical characteristics) are correlated with positive neighborhood
related attitudes and neighborhood-related behaviors. The increasing availability of multi-
level statistical methods (e.g., Kenny, 1985; Sampson, Raudenbush, & Earls, 1997) may
lead to increased efforts to empirically investigate multi-level and crosslevel questions as
part of the ongoing process of community-based research and intervention. Such work
can serve an important role in refining theoretical perspectives on neighborhoods and
in improving the efficacy of community-based interventions.

REFERENCES
Bannes, M., Bonauito, M., & Ercolani, A.P. (1991). Crowding and residential satisfaction in the ur-
ban environment: A contextual approach. Environment and Behavior, 23, 531–552.
Battistich, V., Solomon, D., Kim, D., Watson, M., & Schaps, S. (1995). American Educational Re-
search Journal, 32, 627– 628.
Bishop, P.B., Chertok F., & Jason, L.A. (1997). Measuring sense of community: Beyond local bound-
aries. American Journal of Community Psychology, 18, 193–212.
 Neighborhood-Level Sense of Community • 693

Buckner, J. (1988). The development of an instrument to measure neighborhood cohesion. Amer-

ican Journal of Community Psychology, 16, 771–790.
Bureau of the Census. (1990). Census of Population and Housing (Public Law (P.L.), pp. 94 –171).
Washington, DC: Author.
Center for Substance Abuse Prevention. (1997). Effective community mobilization: Lessons from
experience. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), Depart-
ment of Health and Human Services: Rockville, MD.
Chavis, D.M., Florin, P., Rich, R., & Wandersman, A. (1987). The role of block associations in crime
control and community development: The Block Booster Project. Final Report to the Ford
Foundation, New York, NY.
Chavis, D.M., Hogge, J.H., McMillan, D.W., & Wandersman, A. (1986). Sense of community
through Brunswick’s lens: A first look. American Journal of Community Psychology 14, 24 –40.
Chavis, D.M., & Wandersman, A. (1990). Sense of community in the urban environment. Ameri-
can Journal of Community Psychology, 18, 55 – 81.
Coie, J.D., & Jacobs, M.R. (1993). The role of social context in the prevention of conduct disorder.
Development and Psychopathology, 5, 263 –275.
Cook, C.C. (1988). Components of neighborhood satisfaction: Responses from urban and subur-
ban single-parent women. Environment and Behavior, 20, 115–149.
Coulton, C., Korbin, J., & Su, M. (1996). Measuring neighborhood context or young children in
an urban area. American Journal of Community Psychology, 24, 5–34.
Crump, B. (1977). The portability of urban ties. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the
American Sociological Association, Chicago.
Davidson, W.B., & Cotter, P.R. (1989). Sense of community and political participation. Journal of
Community Psychology, 17, 119 –125.
Davidson, W.B., & Cotter, P.R. (1991). The relationship between sense of community and subjec-
tive well-being: A first look. Journal of Community Psychology, 19, 246–253.
Davidson, W.B., & Cotter, P.R. (1993). Psychological sense of community and support for public
school taxes. Journal of Community Psychology, 21, 59–66.
Davidson, W.B., Cotter, P.R., & Stovall, J.G. (1991). Social predispositions for the development of
sense of community. Psychological Reports, 68, 817–818.
Fischer, C.S. (1982). To dwell among friends. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Fischer, C.S. (1976). The urban experience. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
Glynn, T.J. (1986). Neighboring and sense of community. Journal of Community Psychology, 14,
341– 352.
Hallman, H.W. (1984). Neighborhoods: Their place in urban life. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Isreal, B., Checkoway, B., Schulz, A., & Zimmerman, M. (1994). Health education and communi-
ty empowerment: Conceptualizing and measuring perceptions of individual, organization, and
community control. Health Education Quarterly, 21,149–170.
Jason, L. A., & Kobayashi, R. B. (1995). Community building: Our next frontier. The Journal of
Primary Prevention, 15,195–208.
Kenny, D. (1985). The generalized group effect model. In J.R. Nesselrode, & A. Von Eye (Eds.), In-
dividual development and social change: Exploratory analysis (pp. 345–357), Orlando, FL: Aca-
demic Press.
Kerman, B.D. (1993). A Multilevel Analysis of Community-Based Alcohol and Other Drug Prob-
lem Prevention Task Forces. Unpublished master’s thesis, University of Rhode Island.
Lounsbury, J.W., & DeNeui, D. (1995). Psychological sense of community on campus. College Stu-
dent Journal, 29, 270 –277.
694 • Journal of Community Psychology, November 1999

Maton, K.I., & Salem, D.A. (1995). Organizational characteristics of empowering community set-
tings: A multiple case study approach. American Journal of Community Psychology, 23, 631–
676.
McMillan, D.W., & Chavis, D.M. (1986). Sense of community: A definition and theory. Journal of
Community Psychology, 14, 6–23.
Miller, F.D., Tsembergis, S., Malia, G.P., & Grega, D. (1980). Neighborhood satisfaction among ur-
ban dwellers. Journal of Social Issues, 36, 101–117.
Newman, O. (1972). Defensible space. New York: Macmillan.
Nisbit, R. (1962). Community and power. New York: Oxford University Press.
Plas, J., & Lewis, S. (1996). Environmental factors and sense of community in a planned town.
American Journal of Community Psychology, 24, 109–143.
Perkins, D., & Taylor, R. (1996). Ecological assessments of community disorder: Their relationship
to fear of crime and theoretical implications. American Journal of Community Psychology, 24,
63 –108.
Pretty, G.M.H., Andrews, L., & Collett, C. (1994). Exploring adolescents’ sense of community and
its relationship to loneliness. Journal of Community Psychology, 22, 346–358.
Rapoport, A. (1982). The meaning of the built environment: A nonverbal communication Ap-
proach. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Rousseau, D. (1985). Issues of level in organizational research: Multi-level and cross-level perspec-
tives. Research in Organizational Behavior, 7, 1– 37.
Royal, M.A., & Rossi, R.J. (1996). Individual-level correlates of sense of community: Findings from
workplace and school. Journal of Community Psychology, 24, 395–416.
Sale, K. (1980). Human scale. New York: Coward, McCann & Geoghegan.
Sagy, S., Stern, E., & Krakover, S. (1996). Macro- and microlevel factors related to sense of com-
munity: The case of temporary neighborhoods in Israel. American Journal of Community Psy-
chology, 24, 657– 676.
Sampson, R.J., Raudenbush, S.W., & Earls, F. (1997). Neighborhoods and violent crime: A multi-
level study of collective efficacy. Science, 277, 918–924.
Schwirian, K.P. & Schwirian, P.M. (1993). Neighboring, residential satisfaction, and psychological
well-being in urban elders. Journal of Community Psychology, 21, 285–299.
Shinn, M. (1988). Mixing and matching: Levels of conceptualization, measurement, and statistical
analysis in community research. In P. Tolan, C. Keys, F. Chertok, & L. Jason (Eds.), Research-
ing community psychology: Integrating theories and methods. Washington, DC: American Psy-
chological Association.
Unger, D.G., Wandersman A., & Hallman, W. (1992). Living near a hazardous waste facility: Cop-
ing with individual and family distress. American Journal of Community Psychology, 62, 55–70.
Warren, D. (1978). Explorations in neighborhood differentiation. Sociological Quarterly, 19, 310–
331.
Wellman, B. (1988). The community question re-evaluated. In M.P. Smith (Ed.), Power, commu-
nity and the city, comparative urban research. Vol. 1, p. 81–107. Transaction.
Weisenfeld, E. (1996). Individual-level correlates of sense of community: Findings from workplace
and school. Journal of Community Psychology, 24, 337–346.