Social Capital in
Greater Cincinnati
Building on Trust, Reciprocity, and Cooperation
Social Capital in Greater Cincinnati
Building on Trust, Reciprocity, and Cooperation
Report prepared for:
Report prepared by:
Alfred J. Tuchfarber, PhD
Mark A. Carrozza, MA
Thomas C. Shaw, PhD
Table of Contents
Introduction .....................................................................6
Executive Summary ..........................................................8
The Social Capital Survey .................................................10
Forms of Social Capital.....................................................11
Defining Social Capital......................................................13
Defining Dimensions of Social Capital ...............................14
Social Trust ..............................................................16
Inter-Racial Trust ......................................................18
Diversity of Friendships ............................................20
Conventional Politics ................................................22
Protest Politics..........................................................24
Civic Leadership.......................................................26
Associational Involvement ........................................28
Informal Socializing ..................................................30
Giving and Volunteering ...........................................32
Faith-Based Engagement...........................................34
Strategies for Building Social Capital .................................36
Methodology ....................................................................40
5
Introduction
In 2000, Harvard University Professor Robert D. Putnam published a book called Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American
Community. His work has resonated deeply with civic leaders all across the country who share Dr. Putnam’s concern about the loss of social
capital in communities just like Greater Cincinnati. A fundamental cornerstone of democracy – the right to participate, the urge to associate, and the trust and reciprocity that fuel these basic civic instincts – has deteriorated significantly during the last half of the 20th century.
(We encourage you to learn more about Dr. Putnam’s work by contacting www.bowlingalone.com.)
Even before Bowling Alone was released, however, the urgency revealed in Putnam’s research prompted him to assemble a group of leaders
to help develop solutions. The diverse membership of the “Saguaro Seminar: Civic Engagement in American” at Harvard’s JFK School of
Government spent nearly two years seeking out various ways in which arts, religious, business, government and youth serving institutions
could leverage their assets to fortify social capital in American. (We encourage you to learn more about the recommendations developed by
the Saguaro Seminar in a report called “Better Together” by contacting www.bettertogether.com.)
One of the group’s most significant ideas was to conduct a national study devoted to measuring social capital, and thus to provide a 21st century baseline of information from which the fate of civic engagement could be measured in the future. The Greater Cincinnati Foundation
(GCF) joined 35 other community foundations as local sponsors of a study that included 30,000 respondents nation-wide. One thousand
(1,000) people were surveyed in the tri-state Greater Cincinnati Region. GCF chose the University of Cincinnati’s Institute for Policy Research as its academic partner to analyze local results and to prepare this report for the community.
Preliminary results of the “Social Capital Community Benchmark Survey” were released nationally on March 1, 2001. Study results were
grouped into ten indexes measuring the connections, trust and reciprocity that define social capital. The raw survey data are available in the
public domain at the University of Connecticut’s Roper Center (www.ropercenter.uconn.edu) and summary information about the project is
hosted by the Community Foundation Silicon Valley (www.cfsv.org).
6
Introduction
As is typically the case in the many surveys conducted by the UC’s Institute for Policy Research, Greater Cincinnati’s survey results reveal a
portrait of an “average” community. In simplest terms, our community’s social capital is not better, but no worse, than the “norm” for communities across America. This more detailed analysis of the survey data examines the ten social capital indexes for Greater Cincinnati, seeking to highlight differences in social capital according to dimensions of age, gender, race, place of residence, educational attainment, and/or
income level.
What is important to remember as you read this report is that these study results do not measure the past, predict the future or reveal solutions. Thy only provide a portrait, or benchmark, of today’s situation. The benchmark begins at a point in time where social capital – civic
engagement – has declined everywhere in America, including Greater Cincinnati. We should take no comfort from being “average” or “the
norm.” We should neither rest on the laurels of our civic traditions nor be alarmed by the study findings. Rather, the information in this report can help us illuminate our strengths and flag the weaknesses we need to address.
Our charge for the future is to be “better together.” We are eager to share these study results and to work with our community toward the
ambitious goal of strengthening social capital in Greater Cincinnati. A task force of leading nonprofit institutions is aligned toward this purpose. In the coming months and years, we hope to add our efforts to the many other good works that are already under way in this community.
On behalf of the Greater Cincinnati Foundation, we thank Al Tuchfarber and his staff for this report and hope that you will find it useful in
your own work.
Kathryn E. Merchant
President/CEO
The Greater Cincinnati Foundation
7
Executive Summary
The Greater Cincinnati Social Capital study is part of a national study to measure and enhance social capital in our nation and community.
Social capital is the network of social ties or associations an individual acquires and the levels of trustworthiness and reciprocity that exist
across those connections.
The reason the Greater Cincinnati Foundation funded participation in this study was to help our community to become “better together,”
armed with more information about our strengths and weaknesses in the area of social capital.
The Greater Cincinnati Social Capital study consisted of a telephone survey of the seven “core” counties that abut Hamilton County, Ohio
as well as Hamilton County. One thousand and one (1001) randomly selected Greater Cincinnatians were interviewed.
The major findings of the study include:
•
Social Trust, the most general measure of social capital is highest among:
o
o
o
o
o
o
Suburban residents of the region
Women
Senior citizens
Highly educated individuals
Higher income individuals
Whites
8
Executive Summary
By contrast, it is lowest among:
o
o
o
o
o
o
Residents of the City of Cincinnati
Men
Young adults
African Americans
Those with less than a high school education
Low income individuals
•
Inter-Racial Trust is lower among African-Americans than among whites.
•
Those with college educations are much more likely to have diverse friends than those with low education levels.
•
Males, higher income and higher education individuals are more likely to engage in Protest Politics. African-Americans and whites
do not differ widely in political protest activities.
•
White and African-Americans have similar levels of Faith-Based Engagement. Older people and higher educated people are more
likely to be involved in Faith-Based activities.
•
Social capital in Greater Cincinnati appears to be more broadly spread among various racial, ethnic and social groups than is true in
many American communities.
•
There are thousands of ways that individuals and groups can increase the amount of social capital our community possesses.
9
The Social Capital Survey
Social Capital Community Benchmark Survey
•
Largest scientific investigation of civic engagement ever conducted in America.
o Conducted in forty communities plus a national sample.
o Nearly 30,000 completed surveys.
•
Sponsored nationally by Professor Robert D Putnam and The Saguaro Seminar: Civic Engagement in America of the John F Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University.
Cincinnati’s Social Capital Survey
•
Sponsored locally by The Greater Cincinnati Foundation, in partnership with the Institute for Policy Research at the University of
Cincinnati.
•
1001 completed interviews with a representative sample of the region.
•
Eight-county area in Ohio (Butler, Clermont, Hamilton, and Warren counties), Kentucky (Boone, Campbell, and Kenton counties),
and Indiana (Dearborn County).
10
Forms of Capital
Capital comes in many forms including economic, physical, human, and social. Accrual of capital makes it possible for actors to achieve certain ends. The most direct form of capital is economic, with direct exchange of monies for goods and services.
Economic Capital
Physical Capital
Economic capital is
accumulated wealth in
the form of cash, stocks,
etc.
Physical capital is
material assets such as
buildings, equipment,
tools, and vehicles.
Human Capital
Human capital is the
knowledge, skills,
competence, and
experience acquired
through formal and
informal education and
training.
11
Social Capital
Social Capital is the
network of social ties or
associations an
individual acquires and
the levels of
trustworthiness and
reciprocity that exists
across those connections.
12
Defining Social Capital
1
Social Capital is the ability of individuals to secure benefits by virtue of membership in social networks. Social Capital refers to connections
2
among individuals – social networks and the norms of reciprocity and trustworthiness that arise from them.
Two broad dimensions of Social Capital, the network ties characterized by trust and norms of reciprocity, are bridging and bonding.
Bonding
Bridging
•
•
•
Characterized by dense intra-group network ties.
Network ties reinforce homogeneous groups.
Connections sustain particularized (in-group) reciprocity and
mobilize solidarity.
Examples include fraternal organizations and church-based men’s
groups.
•
•
In this report, bonding social capital is best described by the
measures of Informal Socializing and Faith-Based Engagement.3
•
•
•
•
Inter-group network ties.
Bridging network ties reinforce generalized reciprocity across diverse groups and provide linkages for external assets and information sharing and communication.
Examples include social movement organizations and civil rights
groups.
Bridging social capital is best measured in this study by four
measures: Social Trust, Inter-Racial Trust, Diversity of Friendships, and Protest Politics.3
1
Portes, Alejandro. 1998. “Social Capital: Its origins and applications in modern sociology”. Annual Review of Sociology. 24:1-24.
Putnam, Robert. 2000. Bowling Alone. Simon & Schuster: New York
3
The other measures of social capital have components of both bonding and bridging social capital.
2
13
Defining the Dimensions of Social Capital
Social Trust
Social Trust, the core of social capital, measures the degree to which you trust other people. Generalized trust, not trust of specific people
because of common participation in established groups, is the core of social capital. This index combines trust of neighbors, coworkers, shop
clerks, co-religionists, local police and “most people.”
Inter-Racial Trust
The Inter-Racial Trust index is a measure of how various racial and ethnic groups trust each other. It specifically looks at the extent to
which white, blacks, Asians, Hispanic/Latinos and other groups trust one another.
Diversity of Friendships
Individuals with diverse network ties or social networks, by definition, accumulate greater levels of social capital. The index of Diversity of
Friendships is a cumulative measure based on the whether individuals have friends in each of 11 categories (business owner, on welfare, owns
a vacation home, gay, a manual worker, is white, is black, is Asian, a community leader, and of a different faith).
Conventional Politics
Political participation is also a key indicator of engagement in the community. The index of Conventional Politics looks at whether an individual is registered to vote, actually votes, is interested in and knowledgeable about politics, and reads the newspaper regularly.
Protest Politics
Individuals also participate in the political process through unconventional, non-electoral ways. Protest Politics includes taking part in
marches, demonstrations, boycotts, rallies, participating in groups that took action for local reform, and participating in labor and ethnically
related groups.
Civic Leadership
Civic Leadership is measured by the extent to which individuals are engaged in groups, clubs, and local discussion of town or school affairs,
and whether the individual look a leadership role with in the groups.
14
Defining the Dimensions of Social Capital
Associational Involvement
Associational Involvement in civic activities is measured by asking if the respondent participated in 18 broad group types: organizations affiliated with religion; sports clubs, leagues, or outdoor activities; veterans groups; neighborhood associations; seniors groups; charity or social
welfare organizations; labor unions; professional, trade, farm, or business associations; service or fraternal associations; ethnic, nationality, or
civil rights organizations; political groups; literary, art, or musical groups; hobby, investment, or garden clubs; self-help programs; groups that
meet only over the Internet; and any other type of groups or associations.
Informal Socializing
Social capital is also accumulated by the establishment and nurturing of informal friendships. The Informal Socializing index measures the
degree to which individuals had friends over to their home, hung out with friends in a public place, socialized with co-workers outside of
work, played cards or board games with others, and visited relatives.
Giving and Volunteering
Concern for the community is evidenced by charitable contributions and volunteering time. The Giving and Volunteering dimension measures how often respondents volunteer at various venues and how generous they are in giving.
Faith-Based Engagement
Religion and religious participation is a major component of community connectedness (social capital). This dimension of social capital
looks at religious attendance and membership, participation in church activities other than services, participation in organizations affiliated
with religion, giving to religious causes, and volunteering at a place of worship.
Social Capital Equity
An additional but different type of social capital measure was included in the Cincinnati Social Capital study. All the other measures were
at the individual level – i.e., what individual people do day-to-day. The Social Capital Index measures how social capital is spread among
various groups. Cincinnati scores somewhat better than average on this measure of social capital. In other words, social capital in Greater
Cincinnati is spread more widely among various racial, ethnic and social groups than in most other cities.
15
Social Trust
Social Trust, the core of social capital, measures the degree to which you trust other people. Generalized trust, not trust of specific people
because of common participation in established groups, is the core of social capital. This index combines trust of neighbors, coworkers, shop
clerks, co-religionists, local police, and “most people.” [Component of Bridging Social Capital]
Social Trust
100%
•
90%
Respondents from Hamilton County
Suburbs are almost twice as likely as
respondents from the City of Cincinnati to score high levels of social trust,
due mainly to the low levels of social
trust among Cincinnati’s many African-American residents.
Respondents from other counties including Ohio, Kentucky and Indiana
are more likely to have higher levels of
social trust than respondents from the
City of Cincinnati.
Percent of Those Reporting High Social Trust by Region . . .
•
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
38%
40%
35%
30%
21%
20%
10%
0%
City of Cincinnati
16
Hamilton County Suburbs
Butler, Warren, and Clermont
Counties
Boone, Campbell, Kenton, and
Dearborn Counties
Social Trust
Low
Greater Cincinnati Region
Medium
High
Sample
Size
29.5%
35.6%
34.9%
999
City of Cincinnati
Hamilton County Suburbs
Butler, Warren, and Clermont counties
Boone, Campbell, Kenton, and Dearborn counties
45.0%
25.9%
22.5%
31.3%
33.7%
33.7%
40.0%
33.3%
21.3%
40.4%
37.5%
35.4%
184
303
319
175
Gender of respondent
Male
Female
34.1%
25.6%
36.7%
34.6%
29.2%
39.8%
462
536
Respondent’s age category
18-34
35-49
50-64
65+
.
White
African-American
Other
.
Less than High School Degree
High School Degree or GED
Some College
Bachelors Degree
Some Graduate or Graduate Degree
.
$20,000 or less
Over $20,000 but less than $30,000
$30,000 but less than $50,000
$50,000 but less than $75,000
$75,000 but less than $100,000
$100,000 or more
39.3%
28.0%
27.4%
16.6%
37.4%
36.2%
36.9%
30.4%
23.2%
35.8%
35.6%
53.0%
303
303
197
167
23.4%
68.5%
41.0%
37.3%
23.3%
35.7%
39.3%
8.3%
23.3%
825
115
36
49.3%
31.2%
28.8%
19.7%
19.5%
33.5%
38.4%
35.9%
35.2%
28.5%
17.2%
30.4%
35.3%
45.1%
52.0%
89
354
335
104
100
49.3%
30.1%
33.2%
26.4%
19.8%
23.2%
27.2%
40.8%
33.8%
36.0%
38.9%
30.2%
23.5%
29.1%
32.9%
37.6%
41.3%
46.6%
110
120
218
194
92
98
Race
Education
Income
17
•
Overall women tend to display more
social trust than men.
•
Social trust also tends to vary by age.
Younger respondents were less likely
than their counterparts to display high
social trust. Conversely, respondents
65 and older were considerably more
likely to exhibit high social trust.
•
Overall, African-Americans respondents displayed very low levels of general social trust.
•
Social trust showed a direct relationship with education. The more education a respondent possessed the more
likely that respondent was to report
high levels of social trust.
•
Social trust also varied directly with
income such that respondents with
higher incomes possessed higher levels
of social trust.
Inter-Racial Trust
The Inter-Racial Trust index is a measure of how various racial and ethnic groups trust each other. It specifically looks at the extent to
which white, blacks, Asians, Hispanic/Latinos and other groups trust one another. [Component of Bridging Social Capital]
Inter-Racial Trust
100%
Percent of Those Reporting High Inter-Racial Trust by Region . . .
90%
80%
70%
•
Inter-racial trust does not vary much by region in the
Greater Cincinnati area.
•
Inter-racial trust is low to medium in the City of Cincinnati among African-Americans and medium to
high among Whites.
60%
50%
40%
30%
27%
28%
28%
29%
City of Cincinnati
Hamilton County Suburbs
Butler, Warren, and Clermont
Counties
Boone, Campbell, Kenton, and
Dearborn Counties
20%
10%
0%
18
Inter-Racial Trust
Low
Greater Cincinnati Region
Medium
High
Sample
Size
18.0%
54.1%
27.9%
838
City of Cincinnati
Hamilton County Suburbs
Butler, Warren, and Clermont counties
Boone, Campbell, Kenton, and Dearborn counties
24.9%
14.2%
13.9%
23.2%
47.9%
57.4%
58.1%
48.2%
27.2%
28.4%
28.0%
28.6%
157
257
261
148
Gender of respondent
Male
Female
22.9%
13.6%
54.3%
53.9%
22.7%
32.4%
391
447
Respondent’s age category
18-34
35-49
50-64
65+
.
White
African-American
Other
.
Less than High School Degree
High School Degree or GED
Some College
Bachelors Degree
Some Graduate or Graduate Degree
.
$20,000 or less
Over $20,000 but less than $30,000
$30,000 but less than $50,000
$50,000 but less than $75,000
$75,000 but less than $100,000
$100,000 or more
21.7%
16.5%
15.1%
15.2%
54.7%
55.1%
64.1%
39.6%
23.6%
28.4%
20.8%
45.2%
276
263
159
132
15.7%
29.4%
45.8%
54.4%
53.7%
44.2%
29.9%
16.9%
10.1%
718
104
17
43.0%
18.8%
15.2%
11.1%
7.7%
38.7%
56.1%
55.1%
60.0%
53.3%
18.3%
25.1%
29.7%
28.9%
39.0%
77
317
268
89
85
35.5%
16.1%
17.1%
14.1%
17.0%
19.2%
41.0%
61.4%
55.5%
56.6%
57.8%
54.0%
23.5%
22.5%
27.4%
29.3%
25.2%
26.9%
90
94
198
173
76
83
Race
Education
Income
19
•
Women are much more likely than
men to report high inter-racial trust.
•
Older respondents are considerably
more likely to display high levels of inter-racial trust than all younger age
groups.
•
African-Americans are not as likely as
whites to display high levels of interracial trust.
•
Inter-racial trust increases with education. Although inter-racial trust increases from less than high school to
having a high school degree, the biggest increase and highest trust levels
are exhibited by those with graduate
degrees.
•
Inter-racial trust does not appear to
vary much by income level.
Diversity of Friendships
Individuals with diverse network ties or social networks, by definition, accumulate greater levels of social capital. The index of Diversity of
Friendships is a cumulative measure based on the whether individuals have friends in each of 11 categories (business owner, on welfare, owns
a vacation home, gay, a manual worker, white, black, Asian, a community leader, and of a different faith). [Component of Bridging Social
Capital]
Diversity of Friendships
Percent of Those Reporting Medium High and High on the Diversity of Friendships Index by Region . . .
100%
90%
80%
•
70%
60%
51%
50%
47%
42%
40%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
City of Cincinnati
Hamilton County Suburbs
Butler, Warren, and Clermont
Counties
Boone, Campbell, Kenton, and
Dearborn Counties
20
Diversity of friendship shows an interesting variation within Greater Cincinnati sub-areas. The
greatest diversity of friendships can be found in
the City of Cincinnati. As one looks at respondents further from the city, the diversity of friendships declines. This pattern is, in part, due to the
larger members of diverse people in the city and
central county (Hamilton) who are available to
meet and befriend.
Diversity of Friendships
Low
Greater Cincinnati Region
Medium
Low
Medium
High
High Sample
Size
28.6%
26.6%
26.6% 18.1%
City of Cincinnati
Hamilton County Suburbs
Butler, Warren, and Clermont counties
Boone, Campbell, Kenton, and Dearborn counties
29.9%
25.3%
30.1%
30.2%
19.3%
27.4%
27.8%
30.1%
29.0%
28.9%
25.9%
22.3%
21.8%
18.4%
16.2%
17.4%
185
303
319
177
Gender of respondent
Male
Female
27.3%
29.8%
25.5%
27.6%
25.5% 21.7%
27.6% 15.0%
464
537
Respondent’s age category
18-34
35-49
50-64
65+
.
White
African-American
Other
.
Less than High School Degree
High School Degree or GED
Some College
Bachelors Degree
Some Graduate or Graduate Degree
.
$20,000 or less
Over $20,000 but less than $30,000
$30,000 but less than $50,000
$50,000 but less than $75,000
$75,000 but less than $100,000
$100,000 or more
23.1%
25.5%
29.9%
39.4%
27.3%
27.5%
24.5%
28.9%
30.1%
29.0%
24.4%
21.6%
19.4%
18.0%
21.2%
10.0%
304
303
197
169
27.6%
29.7%
36.3%
27.1%
27.7%
24.2%
27.7% 17.6%
22.4% 20.3%
19.0% 20.5%
828
115
36
47.7%
29.2%
24.9%
24.2%
21.5%
25.9%
30.1%
26.9%
20.8%
22.4%
17.1%
25.5%
27.9%
31.3%
33.0%
9.2%
15.2%
20.3%
23.7%
23.0%
89
356
335
104
100
51.6%
30.4%
26.9%
25.9%
19.3%
19.0%
20.8%
27.7%
30.1%
29.1%
24.4%
23.0%
20.5%
25.8%
25.2%
28.6%
27.8%
37.6%
7.0%
16.2%
17.8%
16.4%
28.6%
20.4%
110
120
218
195
92
98
Race
Education
Income
21
•
Males and females are comparable in their diversity of friendships.
•
Diversity of friendships does not
vary much with age except that
those 65 and older display a
lower diversity rate.
•
Racial groups are also comparable, showing roughly equivalent
levels of diversity of friendships.
•
Diversity of friendships does vary
considerably by education.
Those with college degrees and
graduate work show a much
greater diversity of friendships.
•
Diversity also varies with income.
Lower income respondents have a
lower diversity of friendships while
those respondents with higher incomes show a much greater diversity of friendships.
1001
Conventional Politics
Political participation is also a key indicator of engagement in the community. The index of Conventional Politics looks at whether an individual is registered to vote, actually votes, is interested in and knowledgeable about politics, and reads the newspaper regularly. [Mix of
Bridging and Bonding Social Capital]
Conventional Politics
Percent of Those Reporting High on the Conventional Politics Index by Region . . .
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
Most areas of Greater Cincinnati do not show
high levels of participation in Conventional
Politics.4
•
Hamilton County Suburbs respondents however
are ten to thirteen percent more likely than respondents in the other regions to display high
levels of conventional political participation.
50%
40%
30%
30%
20%
20%
18%
17%
10%
0%
City of Cincinnati
4
•
Hamilton County Suburbs
Butler, Warren, and Clermont
Counties
Boone, Campbell, Kenton, and
Dearborn Counties
This is mostly due to low knowledge in Greater Cincinnati of who their two US Senators are.
22
Conventional Politics
Low
Greater Cincinnati Region
Medium
High
Sample
Size
34.2%
43.8%
22.0%
1001
City of Cincinnati
Hamilton County Suburbs
Butler, Warren, and Clermont counties
Boone, Campbell, Kenton, and Dearborn counties
36.5%
28.5%
32.6%
42.2%
45.4%
41.8%
47.3%
41.2%
18.1%
29.7%
20.1%
16.6%
185
303
319
177
Gender of respondent
Male
Female
34.5%
33.9%
38.8%
48.2%
26.6%
17.9%
464
537
Respondent’s age category
18-34
35-49
50-64
65+
.
White
African-American
Other
.
Less than High School Degree
High School Degree or GED
Some College
Bachelors Degree
Some Graduate or Graduate Degree
.
$20,000 or less
Over $20,000 but less than $30,000
$30,000 but less than $50,000
$50,000 but less than $75,000
$75,000 but less than $100,000
$100,000 or more
57.4%
33.2%
18.4%
14.9%
36.5%
50.4%
48.4%
39.8%
6.1%
16.4%
33.2%
45.3%
304
303
197
169
32.2%
43.1%
50.5%
44.6%
41.3%
35.1%
23.2%
15.7%
14.4%
828
115
36
62.4%
41.3%
30.0%
16.7%
17.6%
27.7%
45.1%
47.2%
53.2%
34.4%
10.0%
13.6%
22.8%
30.1%
48.0%
89
356
335
104
100
52.7%
39.3%
35.0%
32.3%
24.4%
29.8%
38.3%
42.5%
44.1%
42.1%
47.6%
43.4%
9.0%
18.2%
20.9%
25.6%
28.1%
26.9%
110
120
218
195
92
98
Race
Education
Income
23
•
Men are more likely than women to
have high levels of participation in
conventional politics.
•
Conventional political participation
varies directly with age with young respondents displaying much lower levels of participation and older respondents higher levels.
•
Whites are slightly more likely than
African-Americans to have higher
levels of conventional political participation.
•
Respondents with more education are
more likely to exhibit higher levels of
participation in conventional politics.
•
Respondents with low income possess
lower levels of participation; respondents over $50,000 have relatively
higher levels of political participation.
Protest Politics
Individuals also participate in the political process through unconventional, non-electoral ways. Protest Politics includes taking part in
marches, demonstrations, boycotts, rallies, participating in groups that took action for local reform, and participating in labor and ethnically
related groups. [Component of Bridging Social Capital]
Protest Politics
Percent of Those Reporting High on the Protest Prolitics Index by Region . . .
100%
90%
•
Respondents in the City of Cincinnati and
Hamilton County Suburbs are essentially
equivalent in terms of their participation in
political protest activities.
•
Respondents in both the City of Cincinnati
and Hamilton County Suburbs show higher
levels of participation in political protest activities than respondents in either Butler,
Warren, and Clermont counties and Boone,
Campbell, Kenton and Dearborn counties.
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
27%
27%
21%
21%
Butler, Warren, and Clermont
Counties
Boone, Campbell, Kenton, and
Dearborn Counties
20%
10%
0%
City of Cincinnati
Hamilton County Suburbs
24
Protest Politics
Low
Greater Cincinnati Region
Medium
High
Sample
Size
49.5%
26.9%
23.6%
1001
City of Cincinnati
Hamilton County Suburbs
Butler, Warren, and Clermont counties
Boone, Campbell, Kenton, and Dearborn counties
48.5%
49.4%
48.0%
53.8%
24.9%
23.7%
31.4%
25.6%
26.6%
26.8%
20.5%
20.6%
185
303
319
177
Gender of respondent
Male
Female
44.7%
53.7%
26.3%
27.5%
29.0%
18.9%
464
537
Respondent’s age category
18-34
35-49
50-64
65+
.
White
African-American
Other
.
Less than High School Degree
High School Degree or GED
Some College
Bachelors Degree
Some Graduate or Graduate Degree
.
$20,000 or less
Over $20,000 but less than $30,000
$30,000 but less than $50,000
$50,000 but less than $75,000
$75,000 but less than $100,000
$100,000 or more
47.2%
48.5%
45.8%
62.0%
27.5%
27.3%
28.3%
21.6%
25.3%
24.2%
25.9%
16.5%
304
303
197
169
49.2%
47.1%
58.2%
28.2%
24.6%
8.5%
22.5%
28.3%
33.3%
828
115
36
70.2%
54.4%
46.3%
35.0%
36.6%
20.9%
25.7%
26.6%
36.1%
29.2%
8.9%
19.9%
27.1%
28.9%
34.2%
89
356
335
104
100
64.0%
50.0%
49.3%
47.9%
49.1%
33.7%
26.7%
22.1%
26.7%
25.8%
26.6%
30.8%
9.2%
27.8%
24.0%
26.4%
24.3%
35.5%
110
120
218
195
92
98
Race
Education
Income
25
•
Male respondents are much more
likely than female to take part in political protest activities.
•
Respondents between the ages of 18
and 64 are roughly equivalent in terms
of their likelihood to participate in political protest activities; however,
those 65 and over are considerably less
likely to take part in such activities.
•
African-Americans are slightly more
likely than whites to display high
scores for protest politics; however,
these score are not dramatically higher
than those found in other demographic sub-groups.
•
Political protest activities vary directly
with both education and income. Respondents on the lower ends of both
scales are less likely to participate in
such activities while those respondents
with very high incomes or education
levels are considerably more likely to
be involved in these types of activities.
Civic Leadership
Civic Leadership is measured by the extent to which individuals are engaged in groups, clubs, and local discussion of town or school affairs,
and whether the individual look a leadership role with in the groups. [Mix of Bridging and Bonding Social Capital]
Civic Leadership
Percent of Those Reporting Medum High and High Civic Leadership by Region . . .
100%
90%
•
Civic leadership is highest among respondents
in Hamilton County Suburbs.
•
Respondents from the City of Cincinnati followed closely by respondents in Butler, Warren, and Clermont counties have slightly
lower levels of civic leadership.
•
Boone, Campbell, Kenton, and Dearborn
counties have the lowest level of civic leadership.
80%
70%
60%
53%
50%
48%
45%
41%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
City of Cincinnati
Hamilton County Suburbs
Butler, Warren, and Clermont
Counties
Boone, Campbell, Kenton, and
Dearborn Counties
26
Civic Leadership
Low
Greater Cincinnati Region
Medium
Low
Medium
High
High Sample
Size
16.0%
37.0%
27.8% 19.1%
City of Cincinnati
Hamilton County Suburbs
Butler, Warren, and Clermont counties
Boone, Campbell, Kenton, and Dearborn counties
14.6%
11.2%
19.1%
18.1%
37.8%
36.0%
35.5%
40.7%
27.9%
29.7%
27.7%
26.7%
19.8%
23.0%
17.7%
14.5%
185
303
319
177
Gender of respondent
Male
Female
18.8%
13.6%
34.6%
39.1%
25.6% 21.0%
29.7% 17.6%
464
537
Respondent’s age category
18-34
35-49
50-64
65+
.
White
African-American
Other
.
Less than High School Degree
High School Degree or GED
Some College
Bachelors Degree
Some Graduate or Graduate Degree
.
$20,000 or less
Over $20,000 but less than $30,000
$30,000 but less than $50,000
$50,000 but less than $75,000
$75,000 but less than $100,000
$100,000 or more
24.4%
15.6%
11.4%
9.4%
32.4%
34.5%
36.1%
49.2%
27.4%
28.3%
32.0%
23.6%
15.8%
21.7%
20.6%
17.8%
304
303
197
169
14.5%
23.1%
36.0%
37.4%
35.6%
26.0%
29.5% 18.6%
24.1% 17.2%
10.5% 27.5%
828
115
36
38.4%
21.6%
10.0%
7.6%
7.9%
45.3%
36.3%
38.4%
26.7%
34.9%
11.8%
28.0%
29.6%
34.8%
29.9%
4.5%
14.1%
22.0%
30.9%
27.2%
89
356
335
104
100
32.0%
18.7%
15.6%
15.0%
11.4%
9.5%
41.9%
34.5%
41.4%
31.6%
40.2%
31.6%
17.6%
28.9%
24.8%
29.2%
26.7%
29.9%
8.6%
17.9%
18.2%
24.2%
21.7%
29.0%
110
120
218
195
92
98
Race
Education
Income
27
1001
•
When looking at both Medium
High and High levels of civic
leadership both men and women
are roughly equivalent in terms
of civic leadership.
•
There is some variation by age
with the youngest and oldest respondents less likely to take part
in civic leadership.
•
White respondents by just a narrow margin are more likely to be
involved in civic leadership than
African-Americans.
•
While the data do not necessarily follow a completely linear
pattern, leadership essentially
co-varies with both education
and income with increases in either leading to higher levels of
involvement in civic leadership.
Associational Involvement
Associational Involvement in civic activities is measured by asking if the respondent participated in 18 broad group types: organizations affiliated with religion; sports clubs, leagues, or outdoor activities; veterans groups; neighborhood associations; seniors groups; charity or social
welfare organizations; labor unions; professional, trade, farm, or business associations; service or fraternal associations; ethnic, nationality, or
civil rights organizations; political groups; literary, art, or musical groups; hobby, investment, or garden clubs; self-help programs; groups that
meet only over the Internet; and any other type of groups or associations. [Mix of Bridging and Bonding Social Capital]
Percent of Those Reporting Medium High and High Associational Involvements by Region . . .
Associational Involvement
100%
90%
80%
•
The power of associational involvement is extraordinary. For example, scientific research has
shown that becoming a member of one voluntary organization increases a person’s health
status as much as quitting smoking.
•
The four regional areas are essentially equal in
terms of respondents’ levels of associational involvement.
70%
60%
55%
51%
50%
51%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
City of Cincinnati
Hamilton County Suburbs
Butler, Warren, and Clermont
Counties
Boone, Campbell, Kenton, and
Dearborn Counties
28
Associational Involvement
Low
Greater Cincinnati Region
Medium
Low
Medium
High
High Sample
Size
19.6%
28.5%
26.6% 25.3%
City of Cincinnati
Hamilton County Suburbs
Butler, Warren, and Clermont counties
Boone, Campbell, Kenton, and Dearborn counties
22.9%
19.9%
19.2%
16.1%
25.7%
25.2%
30.5%
33.4%
23.3%
25.5%
28.6%
28.3%
28.1%
29.5%
21.7%
22.3%
185
303
319
177
Gender of respondent
Male
Female
17.8%
21.0%
27.3%
29.6%
28.0% 26.8%
25.4% 24.0%
464
537
Respondent's age category
18-34
35-49
50-64
65+
.
White
African-American
Other
.
Less than High School Degree
High School Degree or GED
Some College
Bachelors Degree
Some Graduate or Graduate Degree
.
$20,000 or less
Over $20,000 but less than $30,000
$30,000 but less than $50,000
$50,000 but less than $75,000
$75,000 but less than $100,000
$100,000 or more
19.2%
15.6%
20.6%
27.4%
30.5%
28.1%
30.4%
23.8%
27.0%
30.7%
22.0%
23.3%
23.4%
25.6%
27.0%
25.5%
304
303
197
169
18.8%
24.2%
31.5%
28.5%
24.6%
26.0%
28.7% 24.0%
17.6% 33.6%
7.5% 35.0%
828
115
36
46.4%
24.9%
12.3%
15.8%
6.3%
26.4%
27.4%
31.9%
21.8%
26.2%
14.2%
27.4%
26.8%
30.9%
29.9%
13.0%
20.3%
29.1%
31.5%
37.6%
89
356
335
104
100
33.7%
23.8%
20.2%
17.3%
8.2%
7.4%
32.6%
26.8%
31.8%
28.2%
30.1%
22.3%
18.0%
23.0%
26.5%
32.7%
28.9%
30.3%
15.6%
26.3%
21.5%
21.8%
32.8%
40.0%
110
120
218
195
92
98
Race
Education
Income
29
1001
•
There is little variation in associational involvement across either gender or age. Both males
and females and respondents of
all ages possess relatively equivalent levels of high associational
involvement.
•
White respondents have similar
levels of associational involvement compared to AfricanAmericans.
•
Those with less than a high
school degree have lower associational involvements than
their counterparts.
•
Those respondents making less
than $20,000 a year have lower
associational involvements than
respondents with higher incomes. The higher the income
the higher the associational involvement.
Informal Socializing
Social capital is also accumulated by the establishment and nurturing of informal friendships. The Informal Socializing index measures the
degree to which individuals had friends over to their home, hung out with friends in a public place, socialized with co-workers outside of
work, played cards or board games with others, and visited relatives. [Component of Bonding Social Capital]
Organized Interaction
Percent of Those Reporting High Organized Interaction by Region . . .
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
•
40%
32%
35%
35%
30%
30%
20%
10%
0%
City of Cincinnati
Hamilton County Suburbs
Butler, Warren, and Clermont
Counties
Boone, Campbell, Kenton, and
Dearborn Counties
30
There are only slight variations in levels of informal socializing across the four regional areas.
Informal Socializing
Low
Greater Cincinnati Region
Medium
High
Sample
Size
32.4%
32.5%
35.1%
1001
City of Cincinnati
Hamilton County Suburbs
Butler, Warren, and Clermont counties
Boone, Campbell, Kenton, and Dearborn counties
31.2%
34.0%
35.6%
24.7%
34.5%
28.5%
32.0%
38.2%
34.3%
37.5%
32.4%
37.1%
185
303
319
177
•
Male and female respondents do comparable amounts of informal socializing.
Gender of respondent
Male
Female
37.8%
27.7%
27.7%
36.7%
34.5%
35.6%
464
537
•
Respondent's age category
18-34
35-49
50-64
65+
.
White
African-American
Other
.
Less than High School Degree
High School Degree or GED
Some College
Bachelors Degree
Some Graduate or Graduate Degree
.
$20,000 or less
Over $20,000 but less than $30,000
$30,000 but less than $50,000
$50,000 but less than $75,000
$75,000 but less than $100,000
$100,000 or more
17.4%
29.4%
48.7%
43.9%
26.5%
38.6%
33.3%
33.7%
56.2%
32.0%
18.0%
22.3%
304
303
197
169
30.7%
39.0%
48.7%
33.1%
34.7%
15.5%
36.2%
26.3%
35.8%
828
115
36
Younger respondents between the ages
of 18 and 34 exhibit considerably
higher levels of informal socializing
than do older respondents. Indeed
there is a continued drop off as age increases until one reaches the age of 65
when informal socializing picks up
slightly.
54.6%
29.8%
28.0%
33.6%
32.0%
19.4%
31.4%
33.2%
34.1%
46.7%
25.9%
38.8%
38.8%
32.4%
21.3%
89
356
335
104
100
•
White respondents tend to have
higher levels of informal socializing
than do African-Americans.
46.1%
19.6%
28.5%
34.5%
36.1%
26.5%
26.3%
37.0%
30.8%
28.0%
35.6%
38.7%
27.6%
43.4%
40.7%
37.5%
28.3%
34.8%
110
120
218
195
92
98
Race
Education
Income
31
Giving and Volunteering
Concern for the community is evidenced by charitable contributions and volunteering time. The Giving and Volunteering dimension measures how often respondents volunteer at various venues and how generous they are in giving. [Mix of Bridging and Bonding Social Capital]
Giving and Volunteering
100%
Percent of Those Reporting High on the Giving and Volunteering Index by Region . . .
90%
80%
70%
•
Approximately one-third of respondents in the
Greater Cincinnati region possess high levels of
giving and volunteering.
•
Giving and volunteering is highest among respondents from Hamilton County Suburbs.
60%
50%
40%
38%
34%
31%
30%
30%
20%
10%
0%
City of Cincinnati
Hamilton County Suburbs
Butler, Warren, and Clermont
Counties
Boone, Campbell, Kenton, and
Dearborn Counties
32
Giving and Volunteering
Low
Greater Cincinnati Region
Medium
High
Sample
Size
32.3%
34.3%
33.4%
1000
City of Cincinnati
Hamilton County Suburbs
Butler, Warren, and Clermont counties
Boone, Campbell, Kenton, and Dearborn counties
34.6%
28.9%
31.9%
34.9%
34.4%
33.2%
38.1%
31.3%
31.0%
37.9%
30.0%
33.7%
185
302
319
177
Gender of respondent
Male
Female
34.5%
30.5%
35.5%
33.2%
30.0%
36.3%
463
537
Respondent's age category
18-34
35-49
50-64
65+
.
White
African-American
Other
.
Less than High School Degree
High School Degree or GED
Some College
Bachelors Degree
Some Graduate or Graduate Degree
.
$20,000 or less
Over $20,000 but less than $30,000
$30,000 but less than $50,000
$50,000 but less than $75,000
$75,000 but less than $100,000
$100,000 or more
36.2%
28.1%
31.3%
32.3%
37.9%
31.6%
35.4%
32.1%
25.9%
40.4%
33.3%
35.5%
304
303
197
169
30.3%
42.2%
45.1%
34.8%
30.1%
29.4%
35.0%
27.7%
25.6%
828
115
36
61.1%
37.0%
27.1%
20.4%
17.8%
33.7%
31.3%
38.8%
31.0%
33.7%
5.2%
31.6%
34.1%
48.6%
48.4%
89
356
335
104
100
53.0%
32.0%
31.8%
28.0%
17.5%
14.0%
30.1%
41.2%
33.2%
35.1%
36.9%
40.2%
16.9%
26.8%
35.0%
36.9%
45.6%
45.8%
110
120
218
195
92
98
Race
Education
Income
33
•
Women are slightly more involved in
giving and volunteering than men.
•
Younger respondents (18 to 34) are
least likely to be involved in giving
and volunteering while the next age
cohort (35 to 49) is most likely to give
and volunteer.
•
Whites are slightly more likely than
African-Americans to be involved in
giving and volunteering.
•
Giving and volunteering increase with
higher levels of education and income.
Faith-Based Engagement
Religion and religious participation is a major component of community connectedness (social capital). The Faith-Based Engagement dimension of social capital looks at religious attendance and membership, participation in church activities other than services, participation
in organizations affiliated with religion, giving to religious causes, and volunteering at a place of worship. [Component of Bonding Social
Capital]
Faith-Based Engagement
Percent of Those Reporting High Faith-Based Engagement by Region . . .
100%
90%
80%
70%
•
60%
50%
38%
40%
33%
30%
30%
31%
20%
10%
0%
City of Cincinnati
Hamilton County Suburbs
Butler, Warren, and Clermont
Counties
Boone, Campbell, Kenton, and
Dearborn Counties
34
Levels of religious participation or faith-based
engagement are similar across the four regions
with approximately one-third of respondents in
the Greater Cincinnati Region exhibiting high
levels of faith-based engagement.
Faith-Based Engagement
Low
Greater Cincinnati Region
Medium
High
Sample
Size
34.5%
32.7%
32.7%
997
City of Cincinnati
Hamilton County Suburbs
Butler, Warren, and Clermont counties
Boone, Campbell, Kenton, and Dearborn counties
39.2%
28.4%
36.1%
35.3%
28.1%
34.0%
34.4%
33.5%
32.7%
37.6%
29.5%
31.1%
185
302
316
177
Gender of respondent
Male
Female
42.2%
27.9%
30.5%
34.7%
27.3%
37.4%
462
534
Respondent's age category
18-34
35-49
50-64
65+
.
White
African-American
Other
.
Less than High School Degree
High School Degree or GED
Some College
Bachelors Degree
Some Graduate or Graduate Degree
.
$20,000 or less
Over $20,000 but less than $30,000
$30,000 but less than $50,000
$50,000 but less than $75,000
$75,000 but less than $100,000
$100,000 or more
44.4%
33.4%
28.7%
27.8%
35.7%
31.4%
32.5%
29.1%
19.9%
35.1%
38.8%
43.2%
303
301
196
169
34.1%
38.1%
37.5%
32.3%
27.7%
46.0%
33.6%
34.2%
16.5%
823
115
36
49.2%
38.7%
29.1%
34.8%
27.0%
27.8%
28.9%
38.2%
27.2%
33.0%
23.0%
32.4%
32.7%
38.0%
40.0%
89
354
334
102
99
48.5%
31.8%
38.9%
37.1%
24.5%
34.2%
26.3%
32.0%
29.9%
33.4%
33.4%
38.6%
25.2%
36.2%
31.2%
29.5%
42.0%
27.2%
110
120
218
194
91
97
Race
Education
Income
35
•
Women are more likely than men to
have a high level of faith-based engagement.
•
Faith-based engagement varies directly
with age. The older the respondent,
the more likely they are to have a high
level of faith-based engagement.
•
Whites and African-Americans have
similar levels of faith-based engagement.
•
Education varies directly with faithbased engagement; as a respondent’s
education level increases so does the
likelihood that they will have a high
level of faith-based engagement.
•
Income does not appear to vary systematically with faith-based engagement.
Strategies for Building Social Capital
What Can Individuals Do to Build Social Capital?
Dimension of Social Capital
(Primary Characteristic)
Social Trust
(Bridging)
To Strengthen Common Ties
(Bonding Social Capital)
Organize a social gathering to welcome a
new neighbor.
To Build Connections with Others
(Bridging Social Capital)
Use public transportation and start talking
with those you regularly see.
Join a carpool to ride to work
Go out of your way to interact with people
who are different from you.
Join a Study Circles group, or participate in a
“watch party,” to discuss race relations.
Inter-Racial Trust
(Bridging)
By its nature, inter-racial trust is a bridging
social capital activity; no bonding examples.
Diversity of Friendships
Host a block party or holiday open house.
(Bridging)
Conventional Politics
(Bonding and Bridging)
Protest Politics
(Bridging)
Start a discussion group with co-workers.
Register to vote and go to the polls each
Election Day.
Write a letter to your Congressman stating
your views about an issue.
Fill out a questionnaire on police/community
relations for the ARIA Group project.
(www.ariagroup.com)
Ask a new person whose background is different from yours to attend an event.
Run for public office.
Participate in political campaigns.
Attend town meetings and other political
events.
When somebody says “government stinks,”
suggest they help fix it.
Recommendations from Saguaro Seminar on Civic Engagement in America, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University
36
Strategies for Building Social Capital
Dimension of Social Capital
(Primary Characteristic)
Civic Leadership
(Bonding and Bridging)
Associational Involvement
(Bonding and Bridging)
To Strengthen Common Ties
(Bonding Social Capital)
Work on your town or neighborhood newsletter.
To Build Connections with Others
(Bridging Social Capital)
Join a nonprofit organization advocating for
an issue or cause that you care about.
Organize a neighborhood garage sale and donate a portion of the proceeds to charity.
Join the Elks, Kiwanis, Knights of Columbus
or another type of social/civic association.
Encourage your civic/social organization to
include youth representatives.
Organize or participate in a sports league.
Informal Socializing
Attend PTA meetings.
Play cards with friends or neighbors.
(Bonding)
Persuade a local restaurant to have a designated “meet people” table.
Turn off the TV to talk with friends or family.
Giving and Volunteering
(Bonding and Bridging)
Faith-Based Engagement
Have family dinners and read to your children.
Volunteer in your child’s classroom or chaperone a field trip.
Invite a new friend, neighbor or co-worker to
join your family’s special holiday dinner.
Help coach Little League or other youth
sports – even if you don’t have a kid playing.
Give money to your church or make a contribution to a group where you are a member.
Give money to a charitable organization that
promotes inter-cultural awareness.
Go to church or temple.
Foster inter-generational mentoring.
Mentor someone of a different ethnic or religious group.
(Bonding)
Talk to your children about spirituality.
Attend a religious service or cultural celebration of a different denomination or culture.
37
Strategies for Building Social Capital
What Can Companies, Civic Organizations and Schools Do to Build Social Capital?
Dimension of Social Capital
(Primary Characteristic)
Social Trust
To Strengthen Common Ties
(Bonding Social Capital)
Organize a potluck lunch or dinner.
(Bridging)
To Build Connections with Others
(Bridging Social Capital)
Reconfigure work spaces to encourage social
and work-related interaction.
Bake cookies and provide a special welcome
for new employees or organization members.
Inter-Racial Trust
(Bridging)
Diversity of Friendships
(Bridging)
Conventional Politics
(Bonding and Bridging)
Protest Politics
(Bridging)
Support public art projects and programs that
transcend cultural and demographic boundaRestore extra-curricular activities in schools. ries.
Show a movie, host a performance or invite a Create and promote team projects that provide opportunities for individuals from differspeaker who deals with race relations or
ent departments and levels in the organizahelps build understanding of a different race
tion to work together.
or culture.
Help “transplanted” professionals create a
Host holiday social gatherings or a family
circle of friends that builds community, atpicnic.
tracts young people and helps retain them.
Use arts organizations as community spaces.
Provide time during the workday for diverse
employees to “connect” across social divides.
Invite local government officials to speak at
Broaden the role of citizens in restructuring
your workplace.
government, i.e., serving on charter review
commissions.
Participate in public/private/civic partnerParticipate in community planning initiaships to address complex community issues.
tives.
Circulate a petition for signatures for a candidate or issue you care about.
Address the separation issues that are part of
urban sprawl.
Strengthen organizations connecting individuals and government.
38
Strategies for Building Social Capital
Dimension of Social Capital
(Primary Characteristic)
Civic Leadership
(Bonding and Bridging)
To Strengthen Common Ties
(Bonding Social Capital)
Institute “work-life” programs to help employees meet family and community obligations, i.e., flexible leave time, on-site childcare, elderly assistance.
Create a “civic switchboard” to connect
neighborhood groups to each other.
Associational Involvement
(Bonding and Bridging)
(Bonding)
Giving and Volunteering
(Bonding and Bridging)
Develop incentive programs to encourage
deeper civic involvement for all levels of
employees, not just executives.
Put your people on boards and committees.
Make civics education relevant in schools.
Create work-based civic associations, e.g. ofProvide time off for parents to attend PTA
meetings, athletic contests, plays and recitals. fice-based chapters of national organizations.
Encourage volunteer/community groups to
hold meetings at your site.
Informal Socializing
To Build Connections with Others
(Bridging Social Capital)
Use workplaces as a civic forum, and provide
civic skills education.
Create opportunities for collaboration among
like-minded organizations.
Organize and participate in an employee
sports league or bowling team.
Encourage employees, members, and students
to volunteer for local nonprofit organizations.
Allow civic groups and nonprofits to hold
meetings in your facility.
Start a brown bag lunch series or discussion
series.
Give time off for community service and to
work on civic projects.
Require community service for all students.
Encourage employees to become art participants as well as art spectators.
Faith-Based Engagement
(Bonding)
Contribute to groups that increase community
participation and strengthen social networks.
Support faith-based community development Include churches in public/private/civic
partnerships to address community issues.
initiatives (church- and neighborhood- specific).
Support interfaith organizations.
39
Methodology
Survey Overview
•
Telephone survey of 1001 adults in Ohio (Butler, Clermont, Hamilton, and Warren counties), Kentucky (Boone, Campbell, and
Kenton counties), and Indiana (Dearborn County).
•
Data collected between July and November 2000.
•
Interviews were approximately 26 minutes in length on average.
•
“Last Birthday”5 method of sample selection, with no substitution permitted.
•
Experienced interviewers working in several centralized locations, supervised by senior research staff of TNS Intersearch an international survey firm.
Analysis and Weighting of Data
•
The “other” race category includes a variety of groups such as Asians and Hispanics. These respondents are too diverse and too few in
number to make statements about them.
•
Data were analyzed using SPSS for Windows Version 10.
•
The survey data were weighted, or statistically adjusted, to correct for unequal probability of selection of households and individuals,
as well as for selected demographic characteristics (gender, age, education, and race).
o The Greater Cincinnati Social Capital Benchmark Survey 2000 is a telephone survey of randomly selected individuals within
randomly selected households. Households with multiple phone lines have a higher probability of being included in the sample, just as a person in a household with several people has a lower chance of being selected for the survey. Part of the weighting process corrects these unequal probabilities.
5
The person in the household with the “most recent” or “last” birthday is selected to be interviewed.
40
Methodology
o Due to simple sampling error, the unweighted survey data usually does not exactly match the demographic characteristics of
the region. The weighting process statistically corrects for variation in the gender, age, education, and racial distribution of
the sample, to more accurately reflect the Greater Cincinnati population.
o The demographic characteristics of the final weighted sample are comparable to the demographics of adults in Greater Cincinnati.
41
The Greater Cincinnati Foundation
Elizabeth Bower Reiter, Communications Director
200 West Fourth Street
The Robert and Ruth Westheimer Center for Philanthropy
Cincinnati, Ohio 45202-2602
Phone (513) 241-2880
Fax (513) 852-6886
[email protected]
www.greatercincinnatifdn.org
Institute for Policy Research
P.O. Box 210132
University of Cincinnati
Cincinnati, Ohio 45221-0132
www.ipr.uc.edu
Bowling Alone
www.bowlingalone.com
Better Together
www.bettertogether.org