American Journal of Community Psychology, Vol. 18, No.

1, 1990

Sense of Community in the Urban Environment:

A Catalyst for Participation and Community
Development 1
David M. Chavis 2
School of Social Work, Rutgers-The State University of New Jersey

Abraham Wandersman
University of South Carolina

Social programs need to identify catalysts f o r action which can be targeted

in order to effectively and efficiently meet their goals. A model illustrates
how a sense o f community can have a catalytic effect on local action (i.e.,
participation in a block association) by affecting the perception o f the en-
vironment, social relations, and one's perceived control and empowerment.
The model is tested and confirmed through path-analytic and longitudinal
techniques.

Solving problems through voluntary participation in local community insti-

tutions and organizations is an American tradition (Bellah, Madsen, Sullivan,
Swidler, & Tripton; 1985), which is increasingly considered by contemporary
policy analysts to be vital for effective urban service delivery (Rich, 1979),
health promotion and disease prevention (Green, 1986), crime and drug abuse
prevention (Curtis, 1987), welfare reform (Moynihan, 1986), and mental
health service delivery (Naparstek, Beigel, & Spiro, 1982). It has been difficult
to achieve precision in our empirical understanding of this phenomenon and
the process that occurs at the individual and community level.

~This research was funded, in part, by a National Science Foundation grant #BNS-78-08827
to the Center for Community Studies, John F. Kennedy Center for Research on Education
and Human Development, George Peabody College, Nashville, Tennessee. The authors thank
Paul Florin, Robert Innes, Barry Lee, J. R. Newbrough, and Richard Rich for their comments
on earlier versions of this paper.
2All correspondence should be sent to David Chavis, Center for Community Education, School
of Social Work, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, New Jersey 08903.
55
00914)562/90/02004)055506.00/0 © 1990PlenumPublishingCorporation
56 Chavis and Wandersman

Several types of communities have been identified by the social sciences:

community as a place, community as relationships, and community as col-
lective political power (Gusfield, 1975; Heller, 1989; Suttles, 1972). For all
of these types of community, there exists a process for improving the quali-
ty of community life as portrayed in such terms as "community development,"
"community building," and "community organization." A central mechan-
ism in this process is individuals' participation in voluntary organizations
which produce collective and individual goods. These groups include neigh-
borhood organizations, professional associations, self-help groups, churches,
political parties, advocacy organizations, or unions.
Citizen participation in community organizations has been viewed as
a major method for improving the quality of the physical environment, en-
hancing services, preventing crime, and improving social conditions (e.g.,
Ahlbrandt & Cunningham, 1979; Altshuler, 1970; Churchman, 1987; Flo-
rin, 1989; Hallman, 1974, 1984; Mayer, 1984; Morris & Hess, 1975; Perlman,
1976; Yates, 1973; Yin, 1977).
Sense of community is a phrase commonly used by citizens, politicians,
and social scientists, to characterize the relationship between the individual
and the social structure (e.g., having a sense of community or lacking a sense
of community). This often-cited overarching value of community psycholo-
gy (Sarason, 1974) has received relatively little theoretical or empirical at-
tention until recently (e.g., McMillan & Chavis, 1986; Newbrough & Chavis,
1986a, 1986b).
In this article we empirically explore a model which posits that three
important components influence an individual's participation in voluntary
neighborhood organizations and that sense of community plays a catalytic
role in mobilizing the three components. The three components are the per-
ception o f the environment, one's social relations, and one's perceived con-
trol and empowerment within the community.
The community development process is rooted within the context of
the physical and social environment of the community. The community de-
velopment process, as examined in this study, focuses on the development
of human ecologies by empowering the community. The focus of this ap-
proach is a holistic one, concerned with the development of a community's
human, economic, and environmental resources. The building of a sense of
community acts as a mechanism to stimulate the healthy development of the
environment and the people who inhabit it. Based on McMillan and Chavis'
(1986) theoretical definition of sense of community, a community develop-
ment process stimulates Opportunities for membership, influence, mutual
needs to be met, and shared emotional ties and support. The stronger the
sense of community, the more influence the members will feel they have on
their immediate environment (McMillian & Chavis, 1986). It is through this
Community Development Process 57

process that a sense of community can contribute to individual and commu-

nity development. The relationship between a sense of community and com-
munity competence (its problem-solving ability) through collective effort is
reciprocal.
Although there has been little empirical research within the communi-
ty development literature relevant to these components, there is empirical
support in the social sciences for the importance of each of the three compo-
nents. In general, the literature on each component has been developed
separately. We briefly review literature relevant to each of these three com-
ponents.

P E R C E P T I O N OF THE C O M M U N I T Y E N V I R O N M E N T

Perception of the environment involves judgments about the environ-

ment (e.g., perceived qualities of the environment, satisfaction with the en-
vironment, problems in the environment). Judgments are made about the
degree to which the environment or a specific aspect of the environment is
positive or negative to the individual. If it is viewed negatively, it can lead
to stress and/or arousal (Baum, Singer, & Baum, 1981; Wandersman,
Andrews, Riddle, & Fancett, 1983). Literature reviews have concluded that,
in general, there are substantive relationships between the qualities of the
physical environment, the social environment (e.g., social interaction and
sense of belonging), and residential satisfaction (e.g., Robe, 1985; Taylor,
1982; Weidemann & Anderson, 1985). Negative signs in the environment (e..g,
incivilities such as litter, abandoned cars, or gangs on the street) can lead
to fear of crime, lower property values, and social withdrawal (Ahlbrandt
& Cunningham, 1979; Lewis & Salem, 1981; Perkins, Florin, Rich, Wan-
dersman, & Chavis, 1990; Skogan & Maxfield, 1981; Taylor, 1988). A sense
of community or social cohesion has been found to moderate negative en-
vironmental factors such as crowding (Aiello & Baum, 1979; Freedman,
1975).
On the other hand, the perception of environmental problems can serve
as a motivator to action. Most neighborhood organizations are formed as
a response to the threat or reality of physical deterioration (Crenson, 1978;
Lavrakas, 1980). Wandersman, Jakubs, and Giamarfino (1981) found a cur-
vilinear relationship between perception of environmental problems and in-
dividual participation in a block organization. The highest level of
participation was among residents perceiving a moderate amount of problems
on the block. Florin and Wandersman (1984) found that perception of the
environment can influence an individual's participation in an organization
formed to improve the community.
58 Chavis and Wandersman

A sense of community is associated with the symbolic interaction that

occurs through the use of the physical environment (Brower, 1980). For ex-
ample, as people identify with their neighborhood, they personalize their
homes which contributes to the development of common symbols (Brown,
1987; Taylor, 1988). Common symbols are a part of the membership com-
ponent of a sense of community described by McMillan and Chavis (1986)
(e.g., language, clothes, neighborhood name). Territorial markers and the
creation of defensible space often deter neighborhood crime (Newman, 1972)
which facilitates social interaction. This perception can lead to feelings of
security, order, friendliness, etc. As residents feel safer and more secure in
their community, they are likely to interact more with their neighbors, feel
a greater sense of community, and have more incentive to participate.

SOCIAL RELATIONS

Social relations refers to the interactions among neighbors such as bor-

rowing or lending tools, informal visiting, and asking for help in an emer-
gency (Unger & Wandersman, 1985). Through this interaction, neighbors
provide each other with emotional/personal, instrumental, and informational
support.
When people feel a sense of community, they are more apt to interact
with the residents in their neighborhood (Chavis, Hogge, McMillan, &
Wandersman, 1986; Unger & Wandersman, 1982). At the same time, the posi-
tive face-to-face contact of neighboring continues to enhance the shared emo-
tional connection that helps to maintain a sense of community (McMillan
& Chavis, 1986).
The social network in a neighborhood develops, supports, and supple-
ments the efforts of the neighborhood association by sharing information
about the association, fostering the coproduction of services, such as sanita-
tion and security, through informal social control (Rich, 1979). In general,
residents who socially interact with their neighbors are more likely to be aware
of local voluntary organizations and become members (Wandersman &
Giamartino, 1980; Wandersman et al., 1981). This is particularly true for
neighbors who have more friends in their neighborhood and close ties with
neighbors whom they rely upon for socioemotional and instrumental sup-
port (Ahlbrandt & Cunningham, 1979; Hunter, 1974).
The presence of social networks within a neighborhood helps regulate
social behavior through normative mechanisms called informal social con-
trol (cf. Merry, 1987). In an extensive review of the literature, Greenberg
and Rohe (1986) concluded that while much more research needs to be done,
there is evidence for a negative relationship between informal social control
Community Development Process 59

and crime rates. They suggested that neighborhood organizations can increase
this form of social control.

PERCEIVED CONTROL AND EMPOWERMENT

The importance of the concepts of control and empowerment have been

established in several areas of psychology including clinical psychology (Selig-
man, 1975), social psychology (Langer, 1983), environmental psychology (S.
Cohen & Sherrod, 1978), and community psychology (Rappaport, 1981,
1987). Perceived control relates to the beliefs an individual has about the
relationship between actions (behavior) and outcomes.
Florin applied a cognitive social learning approach to this phenome-
non, whereby expectancies of individual and collective control were used to
predict participation (Florin, Friedmann, Wandersman, & Meier, 1987; Florin
& Wandersman, 1984). Individuals evaluate the likelihood that their own
individual efforts (self-efficacy) or a group of people working together (col-
lective ,efficacy) can solve a neighborhood problem (Bandura, 1986). This
expectancy can influence behavior (e.g., participation in a block organiza-
tion). Locus of control (generalized expectancies about outcomes being related
to one's own actions or to luck, chance, or powerful others) has also been
empirically related to participation (Abramowitz, 1974; Berck & Williams,
1980; Florin & Wandersman, 1984; Zimmerman & Rappaport, 1988). The
results of research trying to link locus of control with participation have been
inconsistent.
The areas of expectancy and control relate to both theory and research
on empowerment (Rappaport, 1987; Zimmerman, in press; Zimmerman &
Rappaport, 1988). Empowerment is "a process by which individuals gain
mastery or control over their own lives and democratic participation in the
life of their community" (Zimmerman & Rappaport, 1988, p. 726). Zimmer-
man and Rappaport suggested that "participation may be an important
mechanism for the development of psychological empowerment because par-
ticipants can gain experience organizing people, identifying resources, and
developing strategies for achieving goals" (p. 727).
A positive relationship between a sense of community and empower-
ment has been theoretically suggested (Chavis & Newbrough, 1986; Rap-
paport, 1977; 1987) but not fully established through research. Maton and
Rappaport (1984) found that the development of a sense of community in
a religious community was related to psychological empowerment. Bachrach
and Zautra (1985) found a sense of community was positively related to
"problem oriented coping" (taking action to solve the problem) when people
are faced with an environmental problem.
60 Chavis and Wandersman

A MODEL OF SENSE OF COMMUNITY AND PARTICIPATION

IN A VOLUNTARY NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION

Our review of the literature indicates that a sense of community has

been shown to be related to at least four domains of scientific investigation
relevant to community development: the perception of the environment, so-
cial relations, control and empowerment, and participation in neighborhood
action. We hypothesize that a sense of community acts as a catalyst for
changes in these domains that promote the positive development of a com-
munity through participation in local voluntary associations. The purpose
of this study was to empirically investigate a model of relations among these
four domains (see Figure 1). This pattern of relations was derived from the
research reviewed earlier. Local action, in this case one's level of participa-
tion in voluntary neighborhood associations (block, tenant, or civic associa-
tions) was considered the proximal variable because it is through these
behaviors that actual ecological changes can occur. Perceptions of the en-
vironment, perceived and actual social relations, and a sense of individual
and collective control interact to influence those participatory behaviors. Over
time these relationships are bidirectional and transactional.
Since we believe that these domains must be viewed in context, we have
placed the importance of the block as a starting point in the model. The cata-
lytic role of a sense of community is dependent on the importance of that

Perception of block problems

\
Evaluatlon of Block Characteristics

Importance of
/
Sense
Block Satlsfact|un

T \
Block > of , , ]~ Nelghborlng ~ Local Actlon
Community Relations

J
Sense o f p e r s o n a l '
and g r o u p
empowerment on the b l o c k

/
Locus of control

Fig. 1. General path model for determinants o f local action.

Community Development Process 61

environment or "community" to the individual. Durkheim (1983/1947), Gus-

field (1975), Suttles (1972), and Wellman (1979) are among the social the-
orists that have noted the evolution or "liberation" of community from solely
the traditional proxemic residential concept. Diversity of life-styles along with
advances in transportation and communication allow for different types and
numerous layers of community. However, the neighborhood still plays a vi-
tally important role in the life of many people, including those limited in
their mobility, their ability to integrate into the larger social systems, or their
resources (Fried, 1984; Taylor, 1988; Thoits, 1982; Unger & Wandersman,
1985).
A sense of community is posited to modify these perceptions and be-
haviors in manners conducive to participation or other forms of local ac-
tion. If an individual has a strong sense of community, the perception of
environmental conditions is hypothesized to be evaluated more positively so
that satisfaction with the environment is increased; one's general inclination
towards the control of reinforcers (locus of control) and a sense of commu-
nity are hypothesized to influence one's sense of individual and collective
control over the residential environment. The character and extent of social
relations and behaviors are influenced by a sense of community as well. These
three domains interact to influence the level of participation in local action.
We conducted two studies in order to investigate the pattern of rela-
tions or processes depicted in our model. The first study of cross-sectional
data attempts to validate the model. The second study identifies potential
directions of influence among the key variables in the model using longitu-
dinal data. We emphasize again that these relationships are seen as being
generally bidirectional and transactional. Causal modeling was used only to
further validate a relationship between the key constructs in this model.

NEIGHBORHOOD DESCRIPTION

The Waverly-Belmont neighborhood in Nashville was typical of many

American transitional urban neighborhoods. Following a post-World War
II exodus to the suburbs by white middle-class residents, the neighborhood
experienced decreasing property values, increased crime, and a general phys-
ical deterioration. Low- and middle-income blacks, displaced by urban renew-
al and highway construction, moved into the area. Beginning in the 1970s
there had been a reverse migration' to urban areas such as this one which
offered spacious older homes and the conveniences and amenities of an ur-
ban location (Clay, 1979). Houses are primarily one- and two-unit dwellings
with a few multiple-unit (3 to 4 units) structures interspersed.
62 Chavis and Wandersman

The neighborhood had approximately 55% nonwhite residents and 45°70

white residents according to the 1980 census (U.S. Census Bureau, 1980).
Blacks comprised 95.6% of the nonwhite population or 53.2°70 of the entire
neighborhood. Individual city blocks tended to have primarily either white
or black residents of varying socioeconomic status. (A "block" refers to the
properties on both sides of a resident's street that face each other, with cross
streets serving as block boundaries.)
A Neighborhood Housing Services program (NHS) was started in this
neighborhood to capitalize on the "back to the city" movement and to up-
grade the conditions for existing residents. The NHS of Nashville, 1 of 195
programs then operating in 140 cities across the United States, is a locally
controlled nonprofit partnership of lenders, government officials, and neigh-
borhood residents dedicated to the revitalization of neighborhoods. The
changing economic and social forces of the neighborhood, fueled in part by
the NHS program, led to its revival during the later half of the 1970s. As
part of its program NHS became involved in a community organizing effort
that resulted in the development of 17 block associations by the summer of
1978. Members of the research team assisted in this organizing effort and
provided other services to the research project (cf. Chavis & Wandersman,
1986).

PROCESS MODEL VALIDATION (STUDY I)

Sample and Design

The sample for this study was drawn from the 1,213 respondents inter-
viewed during the summer of 1979. The sample approximated the distribu-
tion reported by the U.S. Census Bureau with 48.3°7o white respondents,
51.1% black respondents, and 0.6°7o other racial minorities. Respondents
were 56.8°70 female and 43.2% male. For this analysis respondents were select-
ed from the eight blocks that had active block associations in 1979 (N = 423).
The respondents were adult (18 years or older; range = 18-93 years) resi-
dents of the Waverly-Belmont neighborhood in Nashville.
Trained interviewers attempted to interview all adult residents on the
39 blocks selected for the study and recorded all responses to a survey.
Respondents were paid $3.50 for their participation in an interview which
lasted from 45 to 75 min. The model in Figure 1 was tested through path
analysis using structural equations estimated by the ordinary least squares
method of multiple regression to determine the antecedents of local action.
Community Development Process 63

Measures

Table I lists measures used in this study. The independent variables were
the importance o f the block (Measure A), the respondent's sense o f commu-
nity score (Measure B3 from Table I), locus o f control (Levenson, 1974) and
perception of the level of block problems (e.g., crime, sanitation, housing
quality; Measure E). The sense of community score (Measure B3) was used
because the interactive score was believed to be conceptually more appropri-
ate (i.e., the value of a sense of community is a function of the importance
to the individual of having a sense of community with that specific group).
The Locus of Control Scale (Levenson, 1974) has been associated with psy-
chological empowerment (Zimmerman & Rappaport, 1988). It consists of
three subscales: internal control, chance, and powerful others.
Intervening variables were neighboring relations, sense o f personal pow-
er to influence block conditions, sense o f group (neighbors')power over the
block, evaluation o f block qualities (e.g., safe or unsafe, clean or dirty, etc.),
and satisfaction with the block (Measures C, D1-2, F, G5). Factor analysis
was used to generate a factor score from four indicators of one's satisfac-
tion with his/her block. This analysis identified one factor that explained
approximately 57% of the variance in the four items. The factor score was
used to represent block satisfaction in the analysis.
Local action, the dependent variable, was represented by the level of
participation in the block association (i.e., nonmember, member, worker,
or leader, Measure H from Table I).

Table I. Measures
A. Importance of block
Some people care a lot about the kind of block they live on. For others, the block
is not important. How important is what your block is like to you? Range 1-5; not
at all important-important.
B. Sense of community
B1. Do you feel a sense of community with others on this block? (For example, do
you share interests and concerns with them?)
Range 1-5; not at all-a great deal.
B2. How important, is it to you to feel a sense of community with people on the block?
Range 1-5; not important-very important.
B3. Sense of community score (self-report)- interactive score was developed by mul-
tiplying B 1 by B2.
C. Neighboring relations
Range 1-5; none-almost everyone; average of the following 10 items:
1. How many people who live on your block would you recognize?
2. How many of the names do you know of people who live on this block?
64 Chavis and Wandersman

Table 1. Continued
3. How many people on this block would you say you have a neighborhood rela-
tionship?
4. How many people on this block do you see socially at least three or four times
a year?
5. How many people on this block do you consider close friends?
With how many people on your block would you feel comfortable having the
following contacts?
6. asking to borrow a tool
7. talking about a personal problem
8. asking to watch your house while you are away
9. asking to help you with a house repair
10. asking for a ride when your car is not working.
D. Sense of personal and group empowerment on the block
D1. Personal: How much influence do you feel you have in getting the block the way
you want it to be? Range 1-5; no influence-much influence.
D2. Group: If there was a problem in receiving some services from the city, do you
think people on the block could get the problem solved? Range 1-5; definitely-not
definitely.
E. Block problems
Sum of 18 items concerning block conditions. Range 1-4; not a problem, minor problem,
moderate problem, major problem. Conditions: Street pavement, condition of houses,
alley pavement, lighting of streets, water and sewage, traffic, police services, crime,
noisy neighbors, condition of sidewalks, drainage, garbage collection, rats, streets
signs/traffic lights, vacant lots, unkept lawns, stray dogs, fire protection.
F. Evaluation of block
Mean of seven semantic differential items ranged 1-6; dangerous-safe,
unattractive-attractive, messy-neat, noisy-quiet, houses need repair-houses in
good condition, streets and walks need repair-streets and walks are in good con-
dition, bad place to raise kids-good to raise kids.
G. Block satisfaction
G 1. All things considered how satisfied or dissatisfied are you with this block as a
place to live? Range 1-5; very dissatisfied-very satisfied.
G 2 . Respondents were asked to rate their block right now on a scale of 0-10 from
the worst possible way this block could be to best possible way it could be.
G 3. Same as G2 except respondents were asked to rate their block as to the way they
expected it to be 1 year later.
G 4 . How much does this block meet your needs and values of what a block should
be like? Range 1-5; not at all-to a great deal.
G 5. Block satisfaction factor score: A factor analysis was performed on items G1-G4.
Factor scores were created through this procedure.
H. Local action
Index of the level of participation in block associations: (a) nonmember; (b) member
only attended and occasionally talked at meetings; (c) worker (also, encouraged neigh-
bors to come to meetings and/or did work on a committee or outside the meetings,
and/or hosted a meeting at home; (d) leader (also, acted as an officer or committee
leader of organization). Unger and Wandersman (1982) reported that these groups formed
a Guttman scale with a coefficient of reliability of .99 and a coefficient of scalability
of .98.
Community Development Process 65

- . . . . . i. - - [.i.~

. . . . . . ~ q q ' I
Ill III 1
I
i

l l I l l l II

(
i

I
t
~u

"1"(('(

0
"m

I
L)

2e

NI

o -~ Z
~ ~ 0 0
oo-~ ~

> ~ 0 0-. ~ 0 ~ ~ ~
~t
66 Chavis and Wandersman

~o
J~

I i i i'n.~. ~

I o
0
II

¢.,
0

~.~jaj i X
I I I i~ I II

'~ ~
• ,~m.
<

o )o= N
0 ..~
~ ~ 0
o o~ ~o
"'~ ~ '=~ ~ o~ o

,.~.~ ;" ~ ~ o ~
~=~ ,~ ~:~_
Community Development Process 67

Results

A multiple regression analysis was performed including all the variables

represented in the model presented in Figure 1, using one's level of partici-
pation as the dependent variable. The predictor variables explained 23°7o of
the variance. The zero-order correlations between the variables in the model
under study are shown in Table II. A sense of community was found to have
a relatively strong direct bivariate relationship with all the predictor vari-
ables except the perception of block problems and the locus of control
measures.
A path analysis for participation in block associations is shown in Table
III. Path analysis was performed based on the recursive model (Asher, 1983)
in Figure 1. Ordinary least squares regression analysis was u s e d - regressing
each item on all items posited as causally prior to it. Standardized path coeffi-
cients that were significant at the .05 level or higher are reported. The residual
path coefficient (XR) (Asher, 1983) represents the correlation of that vari-
able with unobserved variables. The residual path coefficients or latent vari-
ables (Bentler, 1980) were calculated using the R 2 adjusted for shrinkage (J.
Cohen & Cohen, 1975, p. 106). The adjusted R 2 or/~2 is also reported in
Table III. Figure 2 illustrates the findings of the path analysis.
While explaining only a moderate amount of variance, this model clearly
demonstrates the central role played by a sense of community. The relation-
ships hypothesized in Figure 1 were confirmed by this study, except that block
satisfaction did not have the expected direct effect on local action. A sense
of community was found to have a positive influence on one's perception
of the environment, social relations, and the perceived control the person
had over the immediate environment.
The strongest path to participation was through a sense of communi-
ty, through neighboring relations, which influenced the degree to which a
person became involved in the block association. A sense of community also
had a moderate direct impact on participation in the block association.
An estimate of the indirect effect of sense of community, as recom-
mended by Alwin and Hauser (1975), can be derived by multiplying the path
coefficients. For example, in addition to the direct effect a sense of commu-
nity has on one's level of participation (. 13), it has an almost equal indirect
effect of .10 through neighbor relations as well as smaller indirect impact
through other variables. The importance of the block to the individual had
its own direct effect on the evaluation of the block and sense of group pow-
er, even though it was not hypothesized to do so.
68 Chavis and Wandersman

\ 0

c~

Z e~

0 ~ I.
0

?,

c~

c~

r.)

L O~ e~
!
Community Development Process 69

LONGITUDINAL ANALYSIS TO IDENTIFY POTENTIAL

DIRECTIONALITY OF INFLUENCE (STUDY 2)

The path analysis study was limited in its ability to confirm causal re-
lations because all measures were collected at the same time. To further test
the causal inferences of our process model, we conducted a longitudinal anal-
ysis looking at the relationship between selected variables at two points in
time, 1 year apart. Variables related to increased local action and perceived
or subjective empowerment (perceived personal and group power) were ex-
amined.

Procedures and Instruments

The procedures and instruments were identical to those described for

the previous study.

Sample and Design

The sample for this study was 349 respondents who were interviewed
at both Time 1 (Summer 1978) and Time 2 (Summer 1979). This sample was
demographically different from the sample used in the previous study; 64.5%
were female and 62.5% blacks. The average age of these respondents (at Time
1) was 45.9 years old, while the average age for the entire Time 1 sample
was 40.4 years.
A hierarchical multiple regression technique was used to improve the
estimation of the causal parameters in the analysis as recommended by Cook
and Campbell (1979), Heise (1975), and Kessler and Greenberg (1981). The
Time 2 score for each measure was the dependent variable with the mea-
sures from the prior year acting as the independent variables. Time 1 mea-
sures were entered in a hierarchical form, whereby the dependent variable
in Time 1 was entered into the equation first. The remaining variance would
account for the change between Time 2 and Time 1 and will be called the
"change variance" (J. Cohen, personal communication with J. Tanaka, March
17, 1987). The standardized path (regression) coefficient illuminated the
strength of each variable across time.

Results

Analyses were performed on the entire sample (iV = 349) to confirm

relations between a sense of community, social relations, subjective empower-
ment, and one's level of participation. A significant causal relationship across
70 Chavis and Wandersman

Table IV. Longitudinal Path Analysis Using Hierarchical Regression Method: Sense of Com-
munity (SOC) and Empowerrnent
Modela R2 Change variance b
SOC and personal power (PP), n = 314
SOC2 = SOC~ (.51) a + PP1 (.08) .30 a ns
PP2 = PP1(.23) a + SOC1 (.23) a .15 a .04 a
F(2, 311) = 29.06
SOC and group power (GP), n = 315
SOC2 = SOC~ (.54) a + GPt (.03) .29 a ns
GPz = GP1 (.21) + SOC~ (.22) a .10 a .04 a
F(2, 312) = 18.99
SOC and internal locus of control (ILC), n = 303
SOC2 = SOC1 (.55) a + ILC~ ( - . 0 3 ) .29 a ns
ILC2 = ILC1 (.21) a + SOC~ (.12) .06 a .02 c
F(2, 301) = 10.15
aNumbers in parentheses are the standardized regression coefficient for the variable at Time 1.
bChange variance is the R 2 change after the DV in Time 1 was entered into equation. F = F
change.
~p _< .05.
ap <_ .0001.

the periods chosen for this study was not found for the Chance and Power-
ful Others subscales of the Locus of Control Scale. Table IV shows the models
successfully inferring a causal relationship between a sense of community
and the three indicators of perceived control and empowerment (perceived
personal power and group power on the block and the Internal Control sub-
scale of the Locus of Control Scale). For each pair of variables there are
two structural equations containing the standardized path coefficients between
the two items in Time 1 with one of the items in Time 2 as the dependent
variable. Since the items have been standardized, a comparison of the rela-
tive size of the coefficients clarifies causal inferences (Cook & Campbell,
1979).
Table IV (top) shows the close association over time between the per-
ception of personal power and a sense of community. Perceived personal
power at Time 1 has little, if any, effect on a sense of community at Time
2. However, one's sense of community and perceived personal power at Time
1 have an equal effect on one's personal power over block conditions at Time
2. In Table IV (middle), similar results are shown for sense of community
and a sense of group power. A sense of community influences one's sense
of group power the following year as much as did his/her earlier sense of
group power. Table IV (bottom) shows a weak but significant influence of
a sense of community on a person's internal control. The findings of this
part of the study suggest that some aspect of having a sense of community
leads to an increased sense o f personal and group control, and, to a lesser
degree, a generalized perception of having internal control of reinforcers.
Community Development Process 71

Table V. Longitudinal Path Analysis Using Hierarchical Regression Method: Sense of Com-
munity (SOC) Neighboring (NR)
Modela R2 Change varianceb
SOC and neighbor relations (NR)
SOC2 = SOC1 (.48)a + NR1 (.13)c .31a .01
(F = 5.7)
NR2 = NRI (.38)a + SOC1 (.19)a .25~ .03
(F = 11.98)
aNumbers in parentheses are the standardized regression coefficient for the variable at Time 1.
bChange variance is the R 2 change after the DV in Time l was entered into equation. F = F
change.
Cp _< .05.
dp _ .0001.

A sense of community was found to contribute to neighboring rela-

tions (Table V). An examination of the standardized path coefficients showed
that a sense of community in Time 1 was strongly linked to neighboring in
Time 2. The reciprocal nature of this relationship, as stated earlier, is demon-
strated by the unique variance contributed by neighboring relations in Time
1 to a person's sense of community in Time 2.

Participation, Sense of Community, and Empowerment

The effects of participation in block organizations are reported in Table

VI. A subsample o f the respondents who lived on a block that had an active
block association during both years were selected (n = 143). Individuals' level
of partiLcipation remained fairly constant from Time 1 to Time 2 as indicat-
ed by a path coefficient of .65. Table VI shows the strong interdependence
of participation and a sense o f community. Examination o f the path coeffi-
cients showed that participation at Time 1 contributed significantly to a sense
of community at Time 2, and a sense of community at Time 1 contributed
almost as powerfully to participation at Time 2.
A sense of personal power appeared to precede one's participation based
on the analysis reported in Table VI. However, a sense of group power did
not show any significant relationship with participation in the block associ-
ation. These last two results showed that individual and group power are
independent of each other, though they might be tied together through a sense
of community (see Table IV). A minimal sense of personal power is neces-
sary for an individual to get involved in the association. Through the de-
velopment of sense of community, a sense of group power will develop.
This analysis also revealed (Table VI, middle) that participation on the
block level can have a weak yet significant positive influence on one's inter-
72 Chavis and Wandersman

Table VI. Longitudinal Path Analysis Using Hierarchical Regression Method: Participation,
Sense of Community, Personal Power and Internal Locus of Control
Model a R2 Change variance b
Participation (PART) and sense of community (SOC),
n = 141
PARTs = PART1 (.65) a + SOCt (.15) ¢ .44 d .02 c
(F = 4.5)
SOC2 = SOC, (.51) d + PART, (.19) ~ .28 a .03 ~
(F = 5.69)
Participation (PART) and internal locus of control
(ILC), n = 142
PARTs = PART, (.65) a + ILC, (.04) .42 a ns
ILCs = ILC, (.13) ~ + PART, (.20) c .24 c .04 c
(F = 5.4)
Participation (PART) and personal power (PP), n =
141)
PARTs = PART1 (.65) a + PP, (.17) c .45 d .03 c
(F = 6.5)
PPs = PP, (.34) c + PART1 (.17) c .13 d .03 ~
(F = 3.8)
aNumbers in parentheses are the standardized regression coefficient for the variable at Time 1.
bChange variance is the R 2 change after the DV in Time 1 was entered into equation. F = F
change.
Cp _< .05.
dp < .0001.

nal control of reinforcers. There was an insignificant relationship between

participation and the other locus of control subscales.

DISCUSSION

This study attempted to determine the influence a sense of community

has in stimulating participation. The results presented in Figure 2 graphical-
ly illustrate how the structure of a person's residential ecology (both physi-
cal and social) and a sense of empowerment influence their level of
participation in block associations. These findings support the model in which
a sense of community plays a catalytic role in stimulating satisfaction with
one's residential environment, encouraging neighboring relations, and en-
hancing one's perception of personal and group empowerment to influence
what goes on around their homes.
The contributions of other variables to participation seem to be chan-
neled through the level of one's sense of community. Figure 2 also shows
that a sense of community contributed significant unique, though sometimes
low, variance in almost every direction of the path model leading to partici-
Community Development Process 73

pation in the block association. The pervasiveness of the causal influence

of a sense of community found in the path analysis was confirmed through
the longitudinal path analysis. It is also important to note that the assump-
tion that most of the relations are interactive rather than unidirectional was
verified in the longitudinal analysis. While the causal directions for infer-
ences among these variables should be considered representative of only these
two points in time, it is reasonable to assume that the selection of other or
additional time lags would continue to show the transactional nature of these
constructs.
In the neighborhood environment a sense of community can be both
a cause and effect of local action. People feel more secure with their neigh-
bors when they have a sense of community. They are more likely to feel com-
fortable coming to their first meeting of an association and because of regular
communication among neighbors, they are more likely to hear about it.
The determinants of participation in block associations were well ac-
counted for by this model. The 23% of the variance explained by the multi-
ple regression was considerably better than the results of earlier studies that
relied on traditional demographic variables to predict participation (see Flo-
rin & Wandersman, 1984; Wandersman & Florin, 1981). The major differ-
ence between the two models was the inclusion of neighbor relations (a
behavior) in the present investigation: Neighbor relations contributed sig-
nificantly more than any other item to the prediction of the level of partici-
pation. Neighboring behavior plays an important role in the initial formation
and maintenance of a block association (Unger & Wandersman, 1983;
Wandersman et al., 1981). Neighbors communicate information specifically
relevant to the block association's activities (e.g., meeting times) and pro-
vide information on outside resources (Froland, Pancoast, Chapman, & Kim-
boko, 1981; Granovetter, 1973). Many communities can address their
problems through informal mechanisms provided by strong neighbor rela-
tions (Crenson, 1978; Unger & Wandersman, 1985) and may not resort to
formal organizations.
Figure 2 shows that a sense of community can mediate the perception
of block problems leading to greater satisfaction with the block and more
positive impressions which can lead to neighborhood stability and growth
(Ahlbrandt & Brophy, 1975; Bradford & Marino, 1977; Goetze, 1979; Pearce,
1979; Pol, Guy, & Bush, 1982).
A sense of community is also important for neighborhood development,
as our results suggest, because it contributes a sense of individual and group
empowerment that helps neighbors to collectively act to meet their shared
needs. When people share a strong sense of community they are motivated
and empowered to change problems they face, and are better able to medi-
ate the negative effects of things over which they have no control. A sense
74 Chavis and Wandersman

of community is the glue that can hold together a community development

effort.
This study provides support for aspects of the theory of sense of com-
munity presented by McMillan and Chavis (1986). The influence and need
meeting elements of a sense of community were demonstrated. A sense of
community was positively related to changes in one's sense of group or per-
sonal power. One's level of participation was also demonstrated to be af-
fected by a sense of community. Prestby, Wandersman, Florin, Rich, and
Chavis (1990) demonstrated how participation in block associations met in-
strumental and social needs of members. The community development process
is "activated" when citizens perceive their ability to influence events in order
to obtain needs through participation in collective action.
Participation in local action is important for community development,
but it is not a sufficient goal. Participation does not insure the alleviation
of problems facing the community. In order for local action to be effective,
participants must have or develop the skills necessary to address community
needs. Leaders must be skilled at running and directing the organization.
The environment (government, service agencies) should be supportive of the
association's growth and domain. Finally, the association must address is-
sues that are in the self-interest of its members. Locality-based organizations,
such as block associations, must make sure that they are active in areas that
address the needs and interests of their constituents. Otherwise, success will
not alleviate sources of stress nor enhance the quality or quantity of partici-
pation.
Focusing on a sense of community for purposes of community develop-
ment can have many benefits for the neighborhood. Social programs, in order
to be effective and efficient, need to determine "triggering devices" or catalysts
for their established goals to serve as targets for programmatic efforts. This
type of approach requires determining mechanisms among and within peo-
ple that could serve as a catalyst for change. Our research suggests that a
sense of community is one such mechanism. The elements of a sense of com-
munity (McMillan & Chavis, 1986) offer a guide to activate this process; pro-
grams should be developed that foster membership, increase influence, meet
needs, and develop a shared emotional connection among community
members.
The use of path analysis and longitudinal analysis treated the phenome-
non as a process, consistent with earlier definitions of empowerment (Rap-
paport, 1987). Unlike earlier explorations (i.e., Zimmerman & Rappaport,
1988), we explicitly examined perceived control or empowerment within a
neighborhood context. Zimmerman and Rappaport (1988) used global or
general measures of empowerment to differentiate groups of people from
different contexts. We argue that empowerment is "context specific" so that
Community Development Process 75

a person may feel empowered in one setting (e.g., at home) and without con-
trol in another (e.g., at work)• Correlations reported in Table III between
the contextual empowerment variables (perceived personal and group pow-
er on the block) and the level of participation were much higher (.30 and
•17, respectively) than correlations between the global Locus of Control Scales
and participation ( - . 0 1 , - . 0 1 , . 11 for Powerful Others, Chance, and In-
ternal control subscales, respectively)•
This study also views empowerment as a collective or group experience
as well as an individual process. Recent studies (e.g., Kieffer, 1984; Zim-
merman & Rappaport, 1988) examined empowerment solely as an individu-
al process. We find that perceived individual control and perceived collective
control operate independently yet interact over time. Heller (1989) cautioned
community psychologists that empowerment has been given individualistic
connotations that can further inhibit our field's ability to foster collective
strategies for achieving greater power for disenfranchised groups.

Limitations o f the Current Study and Directions for Future Research

A more deliberate and elaborate attempt at studying the full effects of

a sense of community is needed. The study presented in this paper was deve-
loped from data collected by a research project not originally designed for
the purposes of this,investigation. Some of the results presented are signifi-
cant, yet explain a small percentage of the variance. This sometimes leads
to findings that are suggestive at best. Future research should offer more
items per concept (e.g., importance of the block, sense of group and individual
empowerment), provide more measurement points, have larger samples, and
incorporate objective environmental and social indicators, and include a var-
iety of neighborhoods for comparative purposes.
This investigation was further limited because it focused entirely on the
perception of empowerment. It did not determine whether or not the block
association was actually successful in improving the quality of life or increas-
ing the residents' capacity for self-determination. Future research needs to
delineate perceived empowerment from actual empowerment in terms of their
causes, effects, and the processes (Swift & Levin, 1987). Research has demon-
strated the effectiveness of these organizations for improving the quality of
life: reducing crime and improving housing (Florin, 1979; Wandersman, Un-
ger, Florin, & Chavis, in preparation).
An additional limitation of this study was its analysis of only individu-
al level variables. Complete investigation of community development should
include examinations at the organizational, community (microsystem) and
macrosystems level. Emerging theories must recognize the changes that occur
76 Chavis and Wandersman

at all these levels simultaneously as well as changes in relationships between

these levels.
The strength of a sense of community as a catalyst for the community
development process was apparently demonstrated even with these limita-
tions. Given the limitations of the instruments, it should be considered im-
portant that significant relations among the longitudinal measures could be
found at all. The findings are consistent with a model based on substantial
earlier theory and research. Therefore, the probability that these results are
a chance occurrence is greatly reduced (Nunnally, 1978), though the actual
strength of these relations is still not fully known.
Future theoretical and empirical work should focus on the developmen-
tal process of community. We often tend to study community in a static man-
ner. E. Cohen (1976) presented one of the few examples of the dynamic
quality of community. Development of community is very similar to human
development: Both are "living" or active systems. Therefore, we must look
at development as a process. Gordon (1975) said that development "is in-
fluenced by what has gone on before. It is not, however, simply a process
of adding on . . . . What emerges is a new organization" (p. 5). Communities
are an open system influenced by their environment as well as by their inter-
nal structures. The development of community (like human development)
is inseparable from its environment. We should work to identify qualities
of residential environments that are conducive to community development.
To extend this analogy, we anticipate that future investigation will show that
there are developmental milestones in the development of community much
akin to the function of milestones in human development. Recognition of
these critical points is integral to community development strategies that suc-
cessfully resist neighborhood decline.
Self-help through local action is a driving force within a successful com-
munity development effort. Research on community building and self-help
organizations can aid in the development of new social programs and can
also improve existing ones. Techniques and programs to empower people
and their communities could be an area of expertise for the community psy-
chologist (e.g., leadership training, organization development and main-
tenance, coalition development). An appropriate question for research on
this topic is: Do the formal (organizations) or the informal mechanisms (sup-
port systems) of a community better enable people to cope with community
problems (e.g., crime, unemployment, lack of resources, etc.)? Also, it is
important to determine whether coping as a community enhances individu-
als' abilities to cope in their personal lives. If it does, how is the link between
individual and collective empowerment established? When is stimulating for-
mal mechanisms important and when are informal mechanisms appropriate
for dealing with individual and community problems?
Community Development Process 77

CONCLUSION

Community psychologists should consider the development of human

ecologies, particularly those mediating structures such as the home, neigh-
borhood, work, and voluntary associations, around the value and elements
of a sense of community (Chavis & Newbrough, 1986). This study, and others
reviewed earlier in this article, demonstrate the pervasive catalytic effects a
sense of community can have for different levels and types of change. Com-
munity development should not be limited to residential environments. We
must be open to where the potential for developing community may exist
in other settings. The development of practical skills and techniques that can
be used in the community development process will ensure a unique and
valued role for the community psychologist in our society.
Our greatest challenge lies not in how to effectively research empower-
merit but how to participate in it and encourage it. A redistribution of actu-
al power is inevitable in order to effectively generate a sense of empowerment.
This process has tremendous potential for social conflict. As the definition
of our field (Rappaport, 1987) and social reality (i.e., greater disenfranchise-
ment) moves us to call for empowering those most at risk (the poor, ethnic
minorities, victims of discrimination, the physically disabled, etc.), are we
ready to do what it really takes to bring about that change? Are we willing
to actively commit our personal and professional resources to struggle and
take the risks necessary to really empower poor communities? How will we
deal with the social conflict that will occur in the process of helping the power-
less to become empowered? The answer to these questions will determine
the external validity of our field's commitment to empowerment.

REFERENCES

Abramowitz, S. L. (1974). Research on internal-external control and social political activism.

Psychological Reports, 34, 619-621.
Ahlbrandt, R. S., Jr., & Brophy, P. C. (1975). Neighborhood revitalization: Theory andprac-
rice. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
Ahlbrandt, R. S., & Cunningham, J. V. (1979). A new public policy for neighborhoodpreser-
vation. New York: Praeger.
Aiello, J. R., & Baum, A. (Eds.). (1979). Residential crowding and design. New York: Plenum
Press.
Aldwin, D. F., & Hauser,'R. M. (1975). The decompsition of effects in path analysis. Amer#
can Sociological Review, 40, 3%47.
Altshuler, A. A. (1970). Community control." The black demand for participation in large Ameri-
can cities. New York: Pe_gasus.
Asher, H. B. (1983). Causal modeling (2nd ed.). Beverly Hills: Sage.
Bachrach, K., & Zautra, A. (1985). Coping with a community stressor: The threat of a hazardous
waste facility. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 26, 127-141.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice-Hall.
78 Chavis and Wandersman

Baum, A., Singer, J. E., & Baum, C. S. (1981). Stress and the environment. Journal of Socialls-
sues, 37, 4-35.
Bellah, R. N., Madsen, R., Sullivan, W. M. Swidler, A., & Tipton, S. M. (1985). Habits of
the heart: Individualism and committment in American life. Berkeley: University of
California Press.
Bentler, P. M. (1980). Multivariate analysis with latent variables: Casual modeling. AnnualReview
of Psychology, 31, 419-456.
Berck, P. L., & Williams, L. J. (1980). The neighborhood organization: An emprical examina-
tion ofpsychosocial support. Unpublished manuscript, Indiana/Purdue University, In-
dianapolis.
Bradford, C., & Marino, D. (1977). Redlining and disinvestment as a discriminatory practice
in residential mortgage loans. Report prepared for Office of the Assistant Secretary for
Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Housing
and Urban Development.
Brower, S. (1980). Territory in urban settings. In I. Altman, A. Rapaport, & J. Wohwill (Eds.),
Human behavior and environment, New York: Plenum Press.
Brown, B. B. (1987). Territoriality. In D. Stokols & I. Altman (Eds.), Handbook of environ-
mental psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 505-531). New York: Wiley.
Chavis, D. M., Hogge, J. H., McMillan, D. W., & Wandersman, A. (1986). Sense of community
through Brunswik's lens: A first look. Journal of Community Psychology, 14, 24-40.
Chavis, D. M., & N ewbrough, J. R. (1986). The meaning of "community" in Community Psy-
chology. Journal of Community Psychology, 14, 335-340.
Chavis, D. M., & Wandersman, A. (1986). Roles for research and the researcher in neighbor-
hood development. In R. B. Taylor (Ed.), Urban neighborhoods: Research andpolicy
(pp. 215-249). New York: Praeger.
Churchman, A. (1987). Can resident participation in neighborhood rehabilitation programs suc-
ceed? Israel's project renewal through a comparative perspective. In I. Altman & A. Wan-
dersman (Eds.), Neighborhood and community environments (pp. 113-162). New York:
Plenum Press.
Clay, P. L. (1979). Neighborhood renewal. Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath.
Cohen, E. (1976). The structural transformation of the kibbutz. In G. K. Zollchan & W. Hirsh
(Eds.), Social change (pp. 689-732). New York: Wiley.
Cohen, J., & Cohen, P. (1975). Applied multiple regression. Hillsdale, N J: Erlbaum.
Cohen, S., & Sherrod, D. R. (1978). When density matters: Environmental control as a deter-
minant of crowding effects in laboratory and residential settings. In L. Severy (Ed.),
Crowding: Theoretical and research implications for population-environment psycholo-
gy. New York: Human Sciences.
Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (1979). Quasi-experimentation: Design and analysis issuesfor
field settings. Chicago: Rand McNally.
Crenson, M. A. (1978). Social networks and political processes in urban neighborhoods. American
Journal of Political Science, 22, 578-594.
Curtis, L. A. (Ed.). (1987). Policies to prevent crime: Neighborhood, family and employment
strategies. Annals of the American A cademy of Political and Social Science, 494, 9-168.
Durkheim, E. (1947). The division of labor in society (G. Simpson, Trans.). New York: Free
Press of Glencoe. (original work published 1893)
Florin, P. (1989). Nurturing the grassroots: Neighborhood volunteer organizations and Ameri-
ca's cities. New York: Citizens Committee for New York City.
Florin, P., Friedmann, R. R., Wandersman, A., & Meier, R. (1987). Cognitive social learning
variables and behavior: Cross-cultural similarities in person × situation interaction. Un-
published manuscript, University of Rhode Island.
Florin, P., & Wandersman, A. (1984). Cognitive social learning and participation in communi-
ty development. A comparison of standard and cognitive social learning variables. Ameri-
can Journal of Community Psychology, 12, 689-708.
Freedman, J. L. (1975). Crowding and behavior. New York: Viking.
Fried, M. (1984). The structure and significance of community satisfaction. Population and
Environment, 7, 61-86.
Community Development Process 79

Froland, C., Pancoast, D. C., Chapman, N. J., & Kimboko, P. J. (1981). Helping networks
and human services. Beverly Hills: Sage.
Goetze, R. (1979). Understanding neighborhood change. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.
Gordon, I. J. (1975). Human development: A transactional perspective. New York: Harper
& Row.
Granovetter, M. S. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78,
1360-1380.
Green, L. W. (1986). The theory of participation: A qualitative analysis of its expression in
national and international health policies. Advances in Health Education and Promo-
tion, I(A), 211-236.
Greenberg, S. W., & Robe (1986). Informal social control and crime prevention in modern ur-
ban neighborhoods. In R. B. Taylor (Ed.), Urban neighborhoods: Research andpolicy.
New York: Praeger.
Gusfield, J. R. (1975). Community: A critical response. New York: Harper Colophon Books.
Hallman, H. (1974). Neighborhood government in metropolitan settings. Beverly Hills: Sage.
HaUman, H. W. (1984). Neighborhoods: Their place in urban life. Beverly Hills: Sage.
Heise, D. R. (1975). Casual analysis. New York: Wiley.
Heller, K. (1989). The return to community. American Journal of Community Psychology, 17,
1-15.
Hunter, A. (1974). Symbolic communities. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Kessler, R. C., & Greenberg, D. F. (1981). Linear panel analysis: Models of quantitative change.
New York: Academic Press.
Kieffer, C. H. (1984, January). Citizen empowerment: A development perspective. In J. Rap-
paport & R. Hess (Eds.), Studies in empowerment: Steps toward understanding and ac-
tion (pp. 9-36). New York: Haworth.
Langer, E. J. (1983). The psychology of control. Beverly Hills: Sage.
Lavrakas, P. J. (1980). Factors related to citizen involvement in personal, househoM and neigh-
borhood anti-crime measures: An executive summary. Chicago: Northwestern Universi-
ty Center for Urban affairs.
Levenson, H. (1974). Activism and powerful others: Distinctions within the concept of internal-
external control. Journal of Persona6ty Assessment, 38, 377-383.
Lewis, D. A., & Salem, G. (1981). Community crime prevention: An analysis of a developing
perspective. Crime and Delinquency, 27, 405-421.
Maton, K. I., & Rappaport, J. (1984). Empowerment in a religious setting: A multivariate in-
vestigation. In J. Rappaport & R. Hess (Eds.), Studies in empowerment: Steps toward
understanding action (pp. 37-72). New York: Haworth.
Mayer, N. S. (1984). Neighborhood organizations and community development. Washington,
DC: Urban Institute Press.
Merry, S. E. (1987). Crowding, conflict, and neighborhood regulation. In I. Altman& A. Wan-
dersman (Eds.), Neighborhood and community environments. (pp. 35-68). New York:
Plenum Press.
McMillan, D. W., & Chavis, D. M. (1986). Sense of community: A definition and theory. Journal
of Community Psychology, 14, 6-23.
Morris, D. E., & Hess, K. (1975). Neighborhood power: The new localism. Boston: Beacon.
Moynihan, D. P. (1986). Family and nation. San Diego: Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich.
Naparstek, A. J., Biegal, D. E., & Spiro, H. R. (1982). Neighborhood networks for humane
mental health care. New York: Plenum Press.
Newbrough, J. R., & Chavis, D. M. (Eds.). (1986a). Psychological Sense of Community, I:
Theory and concepts. Journal of Community Psychology, 14(1).
Newbrough, J. R., & Chavis, D. M. (Eds.). (1986b). Psychological Sense of community, II:
Research and applications. Journal of Community Psychology, •4(4).
Newman, O. (1972). Defensible space. New York: Macmillan.
Nunnally, J. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw Hill.
Pearce, D. M. (1979). Gatekeepers and homeseekers: Institutional factors in racial steering.
Social Problems, 26, 2325-2342.
80 Chavis and Wandersman

Perkins, D. D., Florin, P., Rich, R. C., Wandersman, A., & Chavis, D. M. (1990). Participa-
tion and the social and physical environment of residential blocks: Crime and communi-
ty context. American Journal of Community Psychology, 18, 83-116.
Perlman, J. E. (1976). Grassrooting the system. Social Policy, 7(2), 4-20.
Pol, L. G., Guy, R. F., & Bush, A. J. (1982). Discrimination in the home lending market: A
macro perspective. Social Science Quarterly, 63, 716-728.
Prestby, J. E., Wandersman, A., Florin, P., Rich, R. & Chavis, D. M. (1990). Benefits, costs,
incentive management and participation in voluntary organizations: A means to under-
standing and promoting empowerment. American Journal of Community Psychology, 18,
117-150.
Rappaport, J. (1977). Community psychology: Values, research, and action. New York: Holt,
Rinehart, & Winston.
Rappaport, J. (1981). In praise of paradox: A social policy of empowerment over prevention.
American Journal of Community Psychology, 9, 1-26.
Rappaport, J. (1987). Terms of empowerment/exemplars of prevention: Toward a theory for
community psychology. American Journal of Community Psychology, 15, 1-25.
Rich, R. C. (1979). The roles of neighborhood organizations in urban service delivery. Urban
Affairs Papers, 1, 81-93.
Rohe, W. M. (1985). Urban planning and mental health. In A. Wandersman & R. Hess (Eds.),
Beyond the individual: Environmental approaches and prevention. New York: Haworth.
Sarason, S. B. (1974). The psychological sense of community: Prospectsfor a community psy-
chology. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Seligman, M. (1975). Helplessness: On depression, development and death. San Francisco:
Freeman.
Skogan, W. G., & Maxfield, M. G. (1981). Coping with crime. Beverly Hills: Sage.
Suttles, G. D. (1972). The social construction of community. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
Swift, C., & Levin, G. (1987). Empowerment: An emerging mental health technology. Journal
of Primary Prevention, 7, 242-265.
Taylor, R. B. (1982). The neighborhood physical environment and stress. In G. W. Evans (Ed.),
Environmental stress (pp. 286-324). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Taylor, R. B. (1988). Human territorialfunctioning: An empirical evolutionary perspective on
individual and small group territorialcognitions, behaviorsand consequences. Cambridge,
England: Cambridge University Press.
Thoits, P. A. (1982). Life stress, social support, and psychological vulnerability: Epidemiolog-
ical considerations. Journal of Community Psychology, 10, 341-362.
Unger, D. G., & Wandersman, A. (1982). Neighboring in an urban environment. American
Journal of Community Psychology, 10, 493-509.
Unger, D. G., & Wandersman, A. (1983). Neighboring and its role in block organizations: An
exploratory report. American Journal of Community Psychology, 11, 291-300.
Unger, D. G., & Wandersman, A. (1985). The importance of neighbors: The social, cognitive,
and affective components of neighboring. American Journal of Community Psycholo-
gy, 13, 139-170.
Wandersman, A., Andrews, A., Riddle, D., & Fancett, C. (1983). Environmental psychology
and prevention. In R. Felner, S. Farber, L. Jason, & J. Moritsugu (Eds.), Preventive
psychology: Theory, research and practice (pp. 104-127). New York: Pergamon.
Wandersman, A., & Florin, P. (1981). A cognitive social learning approach to the crossroads
of cognition, social behavior, and the environment. In J. H. Harvey (Ed.), Cognition,
social behavior, and the environment (pp. 393-408). Hillsdale, N J: Erlbaum.
Wandersman, A., & Giamartino, G. (1980). Community and individual differences characteristics
as influences on initial participation. American Journalof Community Psychology, 8, 217-228.
Wandersman, A., Jakubs, J. F., & Giamartino, G. A. (1981). Participation in block organiza-
tions. Journal of Community Action, 1, 40-48.
Wandersman, A., Unger, D., Florin, P., & Chavis, D. M. (in preparation). Impacts of small-
scale community development associations.
Weidemann, S., & Anderson, J. R. (1985). A conceptual framework for residential satisfac-
tion. In I. Altman & C. M. Werner (Eds.), Home environments. New York: Plenum Press.
Community Development Process 81

Wdlman, B. (1981). Applying network analysis to the study of support in B. H. Gottlieb (Ed.),
Social networks and social support (pp. 156-198). Beverly Hills: Sage.
Wellman, B. (1979). The community question: The intimate networks of East Yorkers. Ameri-
can Journal of Sociology, 84, 1201-1231.
Yates, D. T. (1973). Neighborhood democracy: The politics and impact of decentralization.
Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
Yin, R. K. (1977). Goals for citizen involvement: Some possibilities and some evidence. In P.
Marshall (Ed.), Citizenparticipation certificationfor community development. Washing-
ton, DC: NAHRO
Zimmerman, M. A. (in press). Empowerment: Forging new perspectives in mental health. In
J. Rappaport & E. Seidman (Eds.), Handbook of community psychology. New York:
Plenum Press.
Zimmerman, M. A., & Rappaport, J. (1988). Citizen participation, perceived control, and psycho-
logical empowerment. American Journal of Community Psychology, 16, 725-750.