Welcome!

Advances in Community Measurement Webinar

We’ll get started in just 

a couple of minutes.

Please be sure to 

access the Audio by 

clicking the speaker 

icon above.
Introductory Remarks

Advances in Community Measurement Webinar

Dr. Mary Hyde

Director, Office of Research 

and Evaluation, CNCS

mhyde@cns.gov
Corporation for National and Community 

Service

Office of Research and Evaluation

Research and Evidence Webinar

Advances in Community Measurement

April 17, 2019

Mary L. Ohmer, PhD

Associate Professor, School of Social Work

University of Pittsburgh 
Webinar Overview

•

•

Welcome and Introductions

Objectives

•

•

•

•

•

•

Discuss a framework for understanding the dimensions of community 

and neighborhood measurement. 

Describe methods for delineating the community as a unit of analysis 

and some of the practical aspects of community data collection. 

Review and discuss community and neighborhood measures

Work on a case scenario to delve more deeply into community research 

problems and questions and identify appropriate measures.

Discuss how you might use and apply what you learned today

Questions and final thoughts 
Conceptual Definitions of Community and 

Neighborhood

•

•

•

•

Communities and neighborhoods are defined as identifiable geographic 

locations or places. 

Place-based communities have specific geographic, social and psychological meanings as well as consequences for the people who live 

and work there (Chaskin, 1997; Coulton, 2005). 

Communities and neighborhoods can be agents of change, targets for 

change or the context within which change happens (Coulton, 2005, p. 74). 

Sampson (2013) conceptualizes “neighborhood in theoretical terms as a 

geographic and, hence, ecological section of a larger community or 

region that usually contains residents or institutions and that has 

socially distinctive characteristics” (p. 8).

Our Conceptual Model for Community and 

Neighborhood Research 

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

Domains

Individual engagement and efficacy 

in the community 

Collective engagement and efficacy 

in the community

Community resources and 

amenities 

Community economics

Community safety and security

Built/natural community 

environment

Community inclusivity

Ecological Settings

Individual

Collective

Community 

Societal 

Emergent Properties 

• Community well- being

Culture

Power
Ecological Settings 

Individual

•

•

•

Measures of people’s 

relationship to and/or 

perception of place, 

neighborhood, and 

community 

Target the individual-level

focus on attitudes, 

cognitions, beliefs, skills, 

and behaviors

Examples: psychological 

empowerment, leadership 

efficacy, civic engagement

Collective 

•

•

•

Measures of community 

organizations and 

institutions 

Target the collective level

and provide tools for 

evaluating actions of 

collectives or collaborative 

partnerships 

Examples: collective action, 

coalition functioning, 

representation in collective 

efforts 
Ecological Settings 

Community

•

•

•

Measures of the social 

unit of the community, neighborhood, or place 

as a whole 

Target community level characteristics, resources 

and other attributes

Examples: collective 

efficacy; housing vacancy; the built environment; 

inclusivity. 

Societal 

•

•

•

Measures of the 

community or place in relationship to the 

external region of which 

the community is a part 

Target factors that 

support or hinder 

communities and 

neighborhoods. 

Examples: access to

transportation or jobs; 

inequality
What is Your Research Orientation and Focus?

Where do you position your Community Research?

Settings/

Focus

Qualitative Methods Quantitative Methods

Interviews Focus 

Groups 

Ethnography Other Surveys Spatial 

Dynamic

Nested 

Models

Other

Individual 

Collective 

Community 

Societal 
Domains 

Individual engagement and efficacy 

•

•

•

•

•

bolsters personal empowerment and skills

shifts power and influence from formal or traditional sources to 

citizens or residents

Includes: individual-level 

participation, perceptions, and 

behaviors related to the 

processes and/or outcomes of 

citizen engagement in one’s 

neighborhood or community.

Collective engagement and efficacy

work together to solve common 

problems or issues.

These measures assess a 

collective units’ perceptions and behaviors related to the 

processes and outcomes of 

engagement in a neighborhood 

or community. 
Domains 

Community amenities and 

resources

•

•

•

important for identifying assets 

and opportunities for change

Leads to more precise 

community-level interventions. 

Includes perceptions and 

objective measures of 

community and neighborhood 

resources and public amenities 

and services

Community economics

•

•

encourages the use of economic 

tools to analyze elements of 

communities that impact 

residents’ ability to access things 

such as housing, employment, 

and public financing

Includes measures of economic 

disparities in communities and 

neighborhoods, such as unequal 

access to jobs and resources, 

including housing market 

strength
Domains 

Community safety and security 

•

•

•

one of the central concerns in 

communities

intersection of individual, 

collective, community, and 

social contexts as targets for 

intervention

perceptions and objective 

indicators of crime and 

violence, and residents’ fear 

of crime in their 

neighborhood

The built/natural 

community environment 

•

•

•

the human-made or natural 

surroundings in a community 

setting that impact people

physical capital of 

neighborhoods and 

communities

Examples: quality of housing; 

access to healthy food, 

walkability, and resources
Domains

Community inclusivity

•

•

•

Promotes equality of access to resources, 

treatment and opportunity of all people in a 

community. 

Measures assess the geospatial distribution of the 

population and resources across communities and 

Includes the impacts of social exclusion and 

segregation and unequal access to resources, as 

well as gentrification and diversity. 
Emergent Properties 

Community well-being

•

•

•

overarching concept and goal that many community activists 

and researchers seek to achieve 

and measure in their work. 

Used interchangeably with 

concepts of community satisfaction, quality of life, and 

happiness. 

Research studies ask: Is the 

community thriving? Are residents satisfied with their 

neighbors, amenities, and 

networks for leading a fulfilled 

life? 

Culture

•

•

•

a characteristic of societies, 

communities, and organizations

The traditional anthropological 

concept of culture is defined as 

shared assumptions, values, 

beliefs, rules, and customs of 

conduct of a group or 

community of people. 

The Robert Wood Johnson 

Foundation (2015) recently 

launched a Culture of Health 

Program conceiving of culture as 

a meta concept
Emergent Properties 

Power 

•

•

A concept that may facilitate 

or inhibit community 

development and 

sustainability

Often understudied in 

community research

• Power has both positive and 

negative aspects (Nelson & 

Prilleltensky, 2005). 

•

•

Power aids in the ability of 

individuals and communities to 

achieve goals evidenced 

through a sense of mastery and 

control over circumstances. 

Power may be used to inflict 

harm or maintain inequity. 
Methodological Considerations in Community and 

Neighborhood Research

• Defining community/neighborhood 

as a unit for measurement

•

•

•

Administrative Boundaries

Residents’ Perceptions of 

Neighborhood Boundaries

Geospatial Boundaries

Regi

on

Cit

y

Neighbo

rhood

Census 

Tract

Blo

ck

Par

cel
Methodological Considerations in Community and 

Neighborhood Research

•

•

Objective and subjective measures

•

•

•

Surveys 

Observations

Administrative data 

Community engagement

•

•

In measurement selection

In developing and validating new measures 
Administrative Boundaries

•

•

•

•

•

The vast majority of studies use administratively defined units as 

proxies for neighborhoods or place-based communities. 

Most are established for statistical or programmatic purposes and do not necessarily coincide with individuals’ experience with regard to their neighborhoods. 

Census tracts are the most commonly chosen units for research

•

•

May be redrawn every ten years

Vary widely in terms of size.

A key question to consider is the degree to which administrative 

boundaries fit the purpose of the research and its 

conceptualization of neighborhood or community. 

Most of these boundaries were not designed for research and 

statistical analysis and are unlikely to represent the actual neighborhood or community experience for most residents
Resident Perceived Neighborhoods

•

•

•

Resident perceptions are an alternative basis from which to 

define neighborhood boundaries that have the advantage of 

representing the areas that are relevant to their everyday 

lives (Matthews, 2011). 

Residents’ perceptions of neighborhood boundaries can be 

used to craft neighborhood units based on consensus.

It is also possible to create bespoke neighborhood units that 

are customized for each individual based on their unique 

boundary specifications.
Geospatial Boundaries 

•

•

•

Defined using spatial buffers or physical features. 

GIS tools can be used to draw individualized neighborhood 

boundaries centered on each person’s location. 

Egocentric or sliding neighborhoods:

•

•

Buffers of varying sizes can be drawn around each 

household’s location, and neighborhood measures are 

calculated for these buffers (Chaix, Merlo, Evans, Leal, & 

Havard, 2009; Guo & Bhat, 2007). 

The buffer may be specified by distance, population size, 

or some other geographic features (Chaix, Merlo, & 

Chauvin, 2005). 
Objective vs. Subjective Measures 

•

•

•

•

•

Objective Measures: The field of neighborhood measurement has moved to favoring objective measures 

of neighborhood environments: such as administrative 

data and systematic social observations.

Subjective Measures are typically derived from survey items that assess individuals’ perceptions of their 

neighborhood.

There are strengths and weaknesses for both methods

When deciding whether to use objective or subjective 

measures of relevant neighborhood attributes, researchers must be clear about what they are trying to 

understand

However, practical matters are also important (e.g., 

time, funding, expertise, etc.)
Engaging Community Partners 

•

•

•

•

Community Sensitivity to being “objects” of research 

because of past practices by social scientists 

Thus community researchers must strive to conduct 

community-driven research. This approach is being 

advanced by CNCS and other institutions.

Community-based participatory research “is a 

collaborative, partnership approach to research that 

equitably involves . . . community members in all 

aspects of the research process” (Israel, Schulz, 

Parker, & Becker, 2001, p. 184). 

This includes measurement selection and 

development.
Engaging Community Partners 

• In order to successfully engage a community partner 

in the selection of measures, there are two essential 

considerations to take into account when 

establishing a truly equitable research partnership: 

•

•

how a researcher/community practitioner communicates 

measurement issues and builds the community partners’ 

capacity to participate in this aspect of the research 

process, and 

the necessary steps to modify or develop measures to fit 

the context of the research study without compromising 

the validity and reliability of the measure
Engaging Community Partners: Example 

•

•

•

•

In one process implemented by Hausman and colleagues (2013), community members participated in focus groups where they were 

asked about youth violence in their community. 

These focus groups were coded, and with the input of community advisors, 43 indicators were identified. The community/academic team then went to a bank of psychometrically validated measures 

that had been used in a previous round of data collection and 

attempted to match the constructs identified in the focus groups 

with the existing measures. 

In this study, 17 of the 43 indicators were represented in the 

measures reviewed. The existing data was then used to evaluate the psychometric properties of the new scales that were 

developed based on the community’s definition of factors that are 

crucial to youth violence. 

The results of the psychometric tests were then discussed with the 

community advisory board and further refinements were made
Community and Neighborhood Measures: Inclusion Criteria 

•

•

•

•

Measurement instruments or methods that are widely used 

and distinct, published and/or manualized, and fully 

documented in accessible publications.

Instruments with replicable and discernable measurement 

methods that can be used by researchers and practitioners

Where possible, measurement instruments or methods that 

have demonstrated evidence of reliability and/or validity. 

Published in English: the majority of the instruments were 

examined and tested in the United States; however, we also 

include measures from other countries if they are more 

widely used, available in English, and/or published in English 

journals or publications.
Community and Neighborhood Measures

Assessing the capacity for community change and the ability of 

communities to engage in collection action and collaborative efforts:

•

•

Community readiness and capacity for change: readiness for change, 

capacity of community-based health and social initiatives, community 

and organizational capacity measures, and community ownership and 

preparedness. 

Strategic collective action in communities: participation and 

representation in collective efforts, the contexts affecting community 

organizing, power and influence in community based participatory 

research, and measures for examining the activities, functioning and 

characteristics of coalitions and partnerships.
Community and Neighborhood Measures

Assessing the nature of social processes and engagement in communities, 

including the impact on social connections, empowerment, and efficacy:

•

•

Social connections and processes in communities: types of connections 

among residents and/or their relationships to a neighborhood or place, 

including: sense of community, social capital, social cohesion/ties and 

collective efficacy. 

Community empowerment and engagement: psychological 

empowerment among youth and adults, community empowerment, civic 

engagement, participation in neighborhood and community 

organizations, neighborhood activism, and sociopolitical control 

(leadership and political) among youth and adults. 
Community and Neighborhood Measures

Measures that assess community characteristics:

•

•

•

•

Community resources and resident satisfaction: observation based measures of 

neighborhood resources, survey based measures of community resources and 

amenities, and environmental indicators; awareness of and satisfaction with public 

services and facilities; perceptions of neighborhood quality and neighborhood and 

community satisfaction.

Built environment: neighborhood food environment related to nutrition and food 

access, cost and quality, walkability, pedestrian and cycling assessments; and measures 

examining neighborhood green spaces, recreation and physical activity.

Housing and neighborhood change: housing quality, affordability, and market strength; 

measures of vacancy and blight, residential mobility, and gentrification and 

displacement.

Community disorder, crime and violence: observational and survey measures of 

physical and social disorder; measures of fear of crime and exposure to violence, as 

well as a methods and data sources used for indicators of crime and violence in 

communities.
Community and Neighborhood Measures

Measures that examine the overall quality and character of placebased communities:

•

•

Place-based social exclusion and unequal access to resources: racial 

and economic segregation, negative environmental exposures, 

access to transportation and jobs, and access to services. 

Community wellbeing and quality of life: domestic and international 

survey measures examining resident perceptions of individual and 

community wellbeing, as well as indicators of wellbeing that use 

existing data sources, such as human development, quality of life 

and livability. 
Scenario: Preventing Community and Youth 

Violence 

•

•

•

Research suggests that stronger social connections and cohesion 

in communities, shared norms and values, and resident 

engagement in addressing neighborhood problems is associated 

with lower levels of community and youth violence. Sociologists 

have done extensive research on this concept, which is called 

neighborhood collective efficacy. 

You are part of a team of social work researchers, neighborhood 

and youth serving agencies and the local police department who are working together to reduce community and youth violence 

using innovative approaches. 

The team is interested in assessing neighborhood levels of 

collective efficacy and their impact on indicators of community and youth violence, and in developing strategies to increase 

collective efficacy in targeted neighborhoods. 
Scenario Questions: Preventing Community and Youth 

Violence

•

•

•

•

How would you define your geographical unit(s) of analysis: what 

ecological settings is your study focused on? Individual, collective, 

community and/or societal? 

Reviewing the measures we discussed earlier, which ones would you 

select for this study and why? 

What are the strengths and limitations of the measures that you 

selected? 

What is the extent of community participation/engagement in the 

research study? And, how would you facilitate this engagement?
Application: Your Own Community and Neighborhood 

Research

•

•

•

What do you need to consider when selecting community 

and neighborhood measures for your own research?

How do methodological considerations relate to the 

selection of measures?

What else might you consider?
Other Resources for Community and Neighborhood 

Measurement 

•

•

•

National Neighborhood Indicators Project: 

http://www.neighborhoodindicators.org/

NeighborWorks America Success Measures: 

http://www.neighborworks.org/Community/OutcomeMeasurement

Resources that provide content specific measures:

• The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s compendium of 

youth violence prevention measures: 

https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/yv_compendium.pdf
Purpose of Our Book 

•

•

•

Ohmer, M.L., Coulton, C., Freedman, D., Sobeck, J. & 

Booth, J. (2019). Measures for Community and 

Neighborhood Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage 

Publications, Inc.

To promote the use of reliable and valid measures for 

community and neighborhood research, including: 

•

•

•

•

program evaluation

community-based and participatory research

community-level intervention research

research on neighborhood effects

It can be used by multiple disciplines, including social 

work, sociology, urban and community development, 

public health, community psychology, etc.
Purpose of Our Book 

• The book can also be used to train students as 

well as staff from community agencies and to 

promote services, programs, and interventions 

that benefit community residents and institutions, 

including:

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

neighborhood organizations

community development corporations

Foundations

Intermediaries

city planning and urban development agencies

Health departments

social services and other nonprofit organizations.
Wrap Up and Questions to Consider 

•

•

What was the most important thing you learned 

about community and neighborhood research and 

measurement?

How will you use the information from this webinar 

in your own research?
Wrap Up and Conclusion 

•

•

•

I hope this webinar inspires you to conduct further 

research using the community research methods and 

measures we’ve discussed today.

There is much work to be done, including engaging in 

further tests of reliability and validity as well as 

creating new measures in areas that lack sound 

community and neighborhood instruments. 

Let’s all move forward to further research, strategies, 

and interventions that improve the lives of individuals 

and families in communities, creates community 

change, and builds strong, healthy, and sustainable 

communities.
Thank YOU! 

•

•

Mary Ohmer - mlo51@pitt.edu

Phone: (412) 624-8214
References 

•

•

•

•

•

•

Chaix, B., Merlo, J., Evans, D., Leal, C., & Havard, S. (2009). Neighbourhoods in ecoepidemiologic research: Delimiting personal exposure areas. A response to Riva, Gauvin, 

Apparicio and Brodeur. Social Science & Medicine, 69(9), 1306–1310.

Chaix, B., Merlo, J., Subramanian, S. V., Lynch, J., & Chauvin, P. (2005). Comparison of a spatial 

perspective with the multilevel analytical approach in neighborhood studies: The case of 

mental and behavioral disorders due to psychoactive substance use in Malmö, Sweden, 2001. 

American Journal of Epidemiology, 162(2), 171–182.

Chaskin, R. J. (1999). Defining community capacity: A framework and implications from a

comprehensive community initiative. Retrieved from Chicago: 

http://www.chapinhall.org/sites/default/files/old_reports/41.pdf

Coulton, C. (2005). The place of community in social work practice research: Conceptual and 

methodological developments. Social Work Research, 29(2), 73–86.

Guo, J. Y., & Bhat, C. R. (2007). Operationalizing the concept of neighborhood: Application to 

residential location choice analysis. Journal of Transport Geography, 15, 31–45.

Hausman, A. J., Baker, C. N., Komaroff, E., Thomas, N., Guerra, T., Hohl, B. C., & Leff, S. S. 

(2013). Developing measures of community-relevant outcomes for violence prevention 

programs: A community-based participatory research approach to measurement. American 

Journal of Community Psychology, 52(3–4), 249–262.
References 

•

•

•

•

•

•

Israel, B. A., Schulz, A. J., Parker, E. A., & Becker, A. B. (2001). Community-based 

participatory research: Policy recommendations for promoting a partnership approach in 

health research. Education for Health, 14(2), 182–197.

Ohmer, M.L., Coulton, C., Freedman, D., Sobeck, J. & Booth, J. (2019). Measures for 

Community and Neighborhood Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Matthews, S. A. (2011). Spatial polygamy and the heterogeneity of place: Studying people 

and place via egocentric methods. In L. M. Burton, S. P. Kemp, M. Leung, S. A. Matthews, & 

D. T. Takeuchi (Eds.), Communities, neighborhoods, and health: Expanding the boundaries of 

place (pp. 35–55). New York: Springer.

Nelson, G., & Prilleltensky, I. (Eds.). (2005). Community psychology: In pursuit of liberation 

and well-being. New York: Palgrave.

Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (2015). From vision to action: A framework and 

measures to mobilize a culture of health. https://www.cultureofhealth.org/en/about/

how-we-got-here.htm;#twn-underlyingprinciples

Sampson, R. (2013). 2012 Presidential Address to the American Society of Criminology: The 

place of context: A theory and strategy for criminology’s hard problems. Criminology, 5(1), 

1–31.