Collective Efficacy and

Evaluation Methods
Slides prepared by Tessa Moul
Quantitative vs. Qualitative Evaluation Methods:
● Quantitative focuses on the numbers
○ Yields objective and accurate results that are collected using standardized methods, that can
be replicated, and that can be analyzed using statistics
○ Limitations:
■ Requires larger sample size for significance, not good at capturing feelings, poor survey
response rates
● Qualitative focuses on the “why” of a question
○ Yields subjective contextual data to explain complex issues
○ Does not start with clearly specified research questions → questions are formulated after
open-ended field research has been conducted
○ Limitations:
■ Time consuming and costly, difficult data analysis and interpretation, lack of
generalizability
Quantitative vs. Qualitative Evaluation Methods:
Quantitative Methods Example:
● Surveys
○ Open-ended vs. close-ended responses:
■ Open-ended are free-flowing responses which makes tracking/analyzing more difficult
■ Close-ended are based on predetermined rating scales or categories
○ Advantages:
■ Multiple deployment methods, reusing surveys can be helpful to track progress over a
period of time, can obtain information on a wide range of topics
○ Disadvantages:
■ Data may provide a general picture but lack depth or context, self-report may lead to bias
Qualitative Methods Example:
● Interviews:
○ Used when interpersonal contact is important and follow-up opportunities are wanted
○ Structured vs. in-depth interviews:
■ Structured interviews ensure uniformity by administering carefully worded questionnaires
with an emphasis on obtaining clear answers
■ In-depth interviews do not follow a rigid form which encourages free and open responses
○ Advantages:
■ Permits face-to-face contact, opportunity to explore topics in depth, gives new insights
and details into topics
○ Disadvantages:
■ Expensive and time consuming, possibility for recall error to please interviewer, flexibility
can create inconsistencies (in-depth interviews)
Collective Efficacy Intro:
● “... collective efficacy unites social cohesion, the ‘collectivity’ part of the
concept, with shared expectations for control, the social action or efficacy part
of the concept” (Sampson, 2006)
○ “combine a particular kind of social structure (cohesion, with an emphasis on working trust and
mutual support) with the culturally tinged dimension of shared expectations for social control”
(Sampson, 2006)

● “the linkage of mutual trust and willingness to intervene for the common good”
(Beck at al., 2012)
Collective Efficacy Intro:
Sample Collective Efficacy Programs:
● Building informal social control:
○ “Participants can be trained to intervene effectively, nonviolently, and directly as bystanders when confronted
with instances of violence or community problems” (Beck et al., 2012)
○ Sample program:
■ “The program had two parts. Part one involved roughly 5 contact hours and two homework assignments
that explored research regarding collective efficacy and the importance of relationships and trust among
neighbors. Participants practiced meeting residents in role-plays and through homework assignments.
They were asked to explore the significance of norms and appropriate behavior, and through group
discussion and homework, they identified norms they would like to see in their neighborhood and the
ways each norm was supported or hindered in the neighborhood. Part two, on skill development, involved
approximately 7 contact hours and three homework assignments that helped residents explore and
practice specific principles and skills for nonviolent intervention. The discussion of nonviolent intervention
was framed by the notion of socialization versus punishment. Thus, participants learned how direct
intervention works to socialize the offender to community norms, rather than simply meting out
punishment or embarrassment. Additionally, participants explored basic principles to guide nonviolent
intervention, which included respect, empathy, and developing their own ability to be safe and calm
during an interaction. Residents were, in turn, given an opportunity to practice the skills of effective and
reflective listening and nonviolent communication through role-plays and homework.” (Beck et al., 2012)
Sample Collective Efficacy Programs:
● Community conferencing:
○ “During the conference, the participants typically achieve a shared understanding about the
causes and consequences of the conflict and then devise a plan of action. A community
conference thus decentralizes decision-making and provides opportunities for neighbors to
interact and revisit norms” (Beck et al., 2012)
○ Sample:
■ “During the conference, neighbors got to know each other and relationships were
formed. The conference provided an opportunity for residents to share norms and
articulate for each other the kinds of behaviors they wanted to support in their
neighborhood, as well as the kinds of behaviors they wanted to eliminate.” (Beck et al.,
2012)
Collective Efficacy Measurement Methods:
● Surveys are most common measurement method
● Example: measuring perceived crime:
○ In the last 3 months, have you,
■ 1) Heard gunshots?
■ 2) Seen somebody
arrested?
■ 3) Seen drug deals?
■ 4) Seen somebody being
beaten up?
■ 5) Seen somebody get
stabbed?
■ 6) Seen somebody get
shot?
■ 7) Seen someone pull a gun
on another person?
● Example: measuring perceived disorder:
○ 1) People in your neighborhood take
good care of their homes
○ 2) There is too much drug use in
your neighborhood
○ 3) Your neighborhood is clean
○ 4) People in your neighborhood
respect one another’s property
○ 5) People leave a lot of junk in their
yards
Sample Survey
References:
● Sampson, R. (2006). Collective Efficacy Theory: Lessons Learned and Directions for Future
Inquiry. Advances in Criminological Theory. https://scholar.harvard.edu/sampson/publications/term/4929
● Beck, E. Ohmer, M. Warner, B. (2012). Strategies for Preventing Neighborhood Violence:
Toward Bringing Collective Efficacy into Social Work Practice. Journal of Community Practice.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10705422.2012.700278?casa_token=o5n09fEzEiE
AAAAA%3AhyUUSuDjHJP5GiIjTb40yu_WuPgy-wd36nldAZAzjLMBN1IDYbWG2PdOHdPvcu9A RxvLsU2AmB3Q