National Social Science Association

National Social Science Association Home
NSSA History
Membership Form
Conferences and Seminars
Publications
Officers and Board Members
Newsletter
New Announcements
Contact NSSA
 
 
 

Social Capital and Economic Development:
The Case for One Small Community 

Janice Yee, Karie Just, Iana Stahov and Stacey Ehlinger
Wartburg College 

    Popularly introduced by Putnam (2000) in his work Bowling Alone, the concept of social capital continues to be one that has drawn both criticism and intrigue into its possible impacts for community development. Social capital is believed to be an important concept in strengthening community cohesion and cooperation, and therefore instrumental in effectively impacting in a positive manner, policy aims which attempt to draw community members together to move towards a common goal. Formal and informal ties to community members can foster community connections, but the degree to which such interactions impact social capital depend much upon the community in question as well as its composition. Working closely with a community organization or volunteering at a local community center is social capital, but one could also classify social capital as a nod to one’s neighbor in the morning.
     In its work on The Social Capital Community Benchmark Survey, the Saguaro Seminar (2001) noted the intricacies related to social capital development commenting on the “literally hundreds of different measures of social capital”(para. 2) that could be used to describe people’s interactions with each other and how these interactions can have a positive impact on social and economic development. Which of those hundreds of measures are relevant to a particular society or community depend much upon the composition of the community as well as the changes the community is expected to experience in the future. Dasgupta (2002) comments on the difficulty in measuring social capital despite the abundance of possible data sources for its measurement. As such, social capital critics have pointed to the diversity of social capital components as a possible weakness in its use and measurement.
     In The Social Capital Community Benchmark Survey (Saguaro Seminar, 2001), Putnam and his team identified 11 factors that they believed were relevant to social capital determination. These factors, noted in Table 1, span a broad spectrum of interactions and provide further evidence of the diversity of interactions that can impact social capital development.
     But does the presence of social capital mean communities will advance in a positive direction? The answer depends upon the types of social capital present. Several researchers have attempted to distinguish between the types of social capital noting that interactions can take place between people within a group or among groups. In other words, some interactions may occur as a result of long-term ties while others come about as a result of individuals or groups needing to forge new relationships. These latter types of relationships, known as bridging social capital, are considered to be vital to the advancement of communities.
     Additionally, one misperception concerning social capital is the belief that it delivers positive results. Social capital “connections” lead to positive benefits between and among members within the group. However, it is possible that such effects may not be positive for those beyond the group, something referred to by economists as “fallacy of composition.” In other words, external and internal effects may occur and they may not be the same for all. Most researchers’ works have focused attention on the external effects of social capital, but it is important to understand the potentially negative effects of social capital formation. PTA organizations often provide positive effects, while terrorist groups impart negative ones. Likewise, what may work for one group or country may not prove beneficial for another; hence, social capital measurement and conclusions must be drawn with careful attention to the community under study.
     For example, small rural communities composed of residents with long-term ties to the community may have a wealth of social capital based on those long-term connections. However, such communities may run into difficulties sustaining their economic base as their population dwindles or their development efforts falter. Social capital researchers suggest the absence of a certain type of social capital which promotes interrelationship building may be one reason for the failure of such communities to move forward. If so, then identifying the types of social capital present in a community and determining the amounts of such capital may be vital to aiding the community identify ways of strengthening connections and helping with its economic development.
     Our study attempts to identify the factors influencing social capital within the community of Waverly and identify the types of social capital within the town. In doing so, our hope is that such a measure will aid the city in its efforts to maintain the vitality of the community and understand the usefulness of such capital in their economic development activities or, at very least, to predict economic progress in the future. Our objectives in this study are therefore:

  • To initiate the development of a database of social capital measurement based on survey data which can be used to study long term trends
  • To attempt to identify the factors important to social capital in the town
  • To evaluate and categorize the types of social capital present

We begin with a brief discussion of the role which social capital can play on economic growth, then continue with analysis of our survey data results and possible implications of those results.

Social Capital and Economic Growth

     Being able to understand the types of social capital may provide researchers with a better understanding of the categories of social capital which would improve a community. One area which continues to be explored is the role that social capital can have on economic development. Putnam believes that social capital is integral in facilitating economic development, noting that it can be “as essential to growth as physical capital, appropriate technology…or getting the prices right” (Putnam, Leonardi, & Nannetti, 1993, p. 38). Enhancing economic transactions is vital to the operations of any economy, and as such, the presence of social capital is considered to be important in the functioning of markets. Given that social capital can produce positive or negative effects for communities as a whole, how does social capital affect economic development? Not surprisingly, the evidence has been mixed. This may be the result of several different perspectives on how social capital develops. Woolcock and Narayan (2000) suggest four major perspectives on social capital that dominate the current discussion. Two views, the communitarian view and the networks view, suggest that social capital develops independently. The former considers such relationships as memberships in organizations as being the primary vehicle for social capital development. The networks view recognizes the potential for harm from social capital, and considers that social capital can take on different forms. Two more recent views, the institutional view and the synergy view, suggest that social capital is somewhat dependent upon other variables. The institutional view posits that institutions, political and legal, can impact the development and growth of social capital. The synergy view draws upon the factors presented by each of the perspectives and attempts to show that while communities may have some inherent social capital, this amount may be enhanced through institutional (political, community, and legal) means. Also, the identification of the types of social capital are important if policymakers are to identify the “harmful” types of capital which need to be monitored less they overwhelm the “good” types of social capital.
     Woolcock and Narayan (2000) go on to discuss three types of social capital that may exist in any economy. Bonding social capital emphasizes those relationships that occur in families or communities of “alike” groups, while bridging social capital is most often present when ‘unlike’ groups interact. Linking social capital is present when those in different social position levels come together. While all types of social capital can be potentially positive to a community, too much bonding and too little bridging social capital can limit individual vision and perspective, and possibly lead to a lack of initiative by the community as a whole.
     As a result, it may be possible that a small community may have high levels of social capital, but the type of social capital may not bring about increases in growth for the community over the long run. Also, a community which has an abundance of bridging social capital may experience more disagreements between the diverse groups, which may lead to less growth initially, but perhaps more growth over the long run.
     This may be a reason why studies linking economic growth with social capital have been less than robust. Casey and Christ (2005) concluded there was no evidence linking social capital with economic performance in the mainland United States, and Hjerppe (2003) reports that while strong correlations exist between social capital and gross domestic product, the existence of a causal relationship remains in question. Additionally, Sabatini (2005) notes the failure of some economic studies to take into account the impact of different types of social capital on economic development is a point of concern. Perhaps a more comprehensive study such as that suggested by Woolcock and Narayan (2000) is needed, one which not only identifies “the nature and extent of a community’s social relationships and formal institutions”(p. 238), but one which can ultimately offer strategies on how the positive forms of social capital can offset the negative ones.

The Sample and Survey Instrument

     Our survey was based on an instrument first developed by Onyx and Bullen (2000). The survey (see Appendix), which was composed of fifty-one questions, attempted to measure different dimensions of social capital as described in Table 1, as well as some demographic information about the respondents themselves. The responses were categorized on a 4-point Likert-type scale with one associated with a response of no, not much or no, not at all and four meaning yes, definitely or yes, frequently.
     The survey was distributed to the small community of Waverly, Iowa, which had a total population of 9,298 as of 2005 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2005). The database of potential survey recipients consisted only of households with a Waverly address. One thousand addresses from that database were randomly chosen and surveys were sent to those chosen households; there was a return of 285 surveys. Our sample consists of citizens between the ages of 24 and 89, and 98.9% of those citizens prefer to speak English in their households. Of the total sample, 63.2% are female and the mean age of the sample is 56.17 years. In terms of employment, 71.2% of the respondents are employed with a mean of 45.68 hours worked per week. Over 93% of the sample lives in private housing, flats or units, and only 7.4% of respondents are renting their accommodation. Of the respondents, 36.1% earn a salary of more than $55,000, while 8.1% have salaries below $15,000. Wages or salaries are the main source of income for 66.3% of the respondents and pensions are the main source of income for 24.9%. In the sample, 51.2% have a college degree or higher, whereas 31.2% have less than a high school diploma or GED equivalent.

Data Analysis

     The surveys were analyzed using SPSS. Factor analysis was used to determine the factors of social capital found in Waverly. Missing data was replaced by the means of the variables in order to use all survey responses in the computations. By using an oblique rotation in factor analysis, 11 factors and the correlations between the factors were ascertained. Factor names were assigned based upon variables common characteristics, and all 11 factors are listed in Table 2.
     Thirty-six questions on the survey were used to determine the 11 factors pertaining to social capital. All eleven factors had eigenvalues above one. Together, the factors explain 61.747% of the total variance, as shown in Table 3. The distribution of values in the sample is adequate for conducting factor analysis with a KMO of .822. The Bartlett test of sphericity had no significance, an approximate chi-square of 1790, and a df of 630.
     After comparing the 11 different areas of social capital according to The Social Capital Community Benchmark Survey with the results from the Waverly survey, it was determined that some of the factors were very similar. Therefore, the similar factors were labeled with titles already established. Those factors were Informal Socializing and Social Trust.
The 11 factors were labeled according to the questions that loaded onto each factor. All the factor loadings are listed in Table 4. The first factor was labeled Leadership and Volunteering. This factor was the largest by far and accounted for 19.2% of the variance and had an eigenvalue of 6.913. Seven of the survey questions loaded onto this factor with a loading of .570 or higher. Factor 2 was labeled Social Satisfaction. Three out of the four questions pertained to the workplace, but an odd one “Does your local community feel like home?” also loaded onto this factor. In the study done by Onyx and Bullen (2000), their calculations placed this question under Feelings of Trust and Safety; the survey done in Waverly had this question under Factor 2, but it also had a loading of .432 on Factor 10 Social Trust. Factor 3, Assertiveness/Diversity Acceptance, pulls together the ability to stand up for what one believes in and also willingness to accept and appreciate diversity. Informal Socializing is Factor 4. Task Initiative is Factor 5 and deals with the workplace. Factor 6 was labeled Community Support. Factor 7 was labeled Quality of Life Perception and includes questions such as “If you were to die tomorrow, would you be satisfied with what your life has meant?” Factor 8 was labeled Public Well-being/ Support and is defined by one question,“Some say that by helping others you help yourself in the long run. Do you agree?” which had a loading of .848. Safety was Factor 9 which dealt with the safety of the area, which in this case would be Waverly, Iowa. Social Trust was Factor 10 and includes “Do you agree that most people can be trusted?” Factor 11 was labeled Effort Extension because effort must be expended in order to visit family in other towns and to pick up other people’s garbage.
     The oblique rotation identifies the correlations between the factors to determine if any have a close relationship, as illustrated in Table 5. Leadership and Volunteeringhad the four strongest correlations with Informal Socializing(-.281), Quality of Life Perception(.268), Community Support(.248), and Social Trust(-.225). Informal SocializingandSocial Trusthad negative correlations with the rest of the factors.

Discussion

     The Social Capital Survey in Waverly, Iowa aimed at answering a series of questions: what factors seem to impact the level of social capital in Waverly, how those factors correlate with each other, what types of social capital can we distinguish, and how strong each type is. Our survey data analysis indicates a range of similarities with the Social Capital Community Benchmark Survey.
     The factor scores listed in Table 6 were calculated based on the variables means grouped by factor (previously shown in Table 4), and it indicates that the highest scores (above 3.5) were registered for factors Task Initiative (3.55), Public Well-being/Support (3.61), and Safety (3.68). All three are bridging types of social capital as they relate to interactions among diverse groups. This points out that the Waverly community has relatively more bridging than bonding social capital as the two factors that relate to the latter, Informal Socializing (Factor 4) and Social Trust (Factor 10), scored only around 3. The low score for Social Trust compared to most others is related to the lower scores for Leadership and Volunteering (Factor 1) and Community Support (Factor 6) at 2.22 and 2.77, respectively. This implies that the respondents are less willing to engage in community projects and functions as they perceive that their community is not supportive and trustworthy enough.
     Also, from Table 6, it can be concluded that Factors 4 and 10, which relate to bonding social capital, correlate negatively with all other bridging social capital factors. That indicates that the two groups of factors measure different types of social capital. Based on the correlations and questions within each factor, we categorized each measure as either bridging or bonding. Thus, the negative correlation between the bonding and bridging factors supports the idea listed at the beginning of this paper that the two, although both social capital measures, refer to different kinds of interactions. A high level in both implies more sociability but it represents, respectively, a lower and a higher degree of reaching out outside one’s comfort zone.
     The cumulative bridging social capital factors score is 3.16, which is slightly higher than the cumulative score of 3.00 for bonding social capital factors. Therefore, it can be concluded that the Waverly community displays a rather high level of both types of social capital (on a scale of 1 to 4). One bridging factor that particularly stands out because it directly impacts workplace performance, innovative spirit, and productivity is Task Initiative (Factor 5). It could be then considered a stimulus of economic development, and that is one way the bonding social capital cumulative score could be impacted by the level of social capital in a community.
     Our findings from this first round of the survey represent a reference point for future surveys. As data is compiled over time, we will be able to assess how the social capital level fluctuates over time and how that correlates with the economic development of the community. If a persistent pattern can be distinguished, future reports might start building upon the idea of causation between a higher level of social capital and economic progress in a community.

Concluding Remarks

Our initial goal was not only to measure the amount of social capital within the city of Waverly, but also to determine the types of social capital present in the city. As was previously noted, prior research has suggested that bonding social capital may hinder the growth of communities such as those found in rural settings. Our results suggest the presence of a large amount of bridging social capital in the town of Waverly which may impact the community in a positive manner. One reason for the increased presence of bridging social capital may be the presence of an ever changing college population and a large percentage of the population that have lived in the city less than five years. This may bode well for the community as a whole since this changing population may bring with it new ideas and perspectives.

References

Casey, T. & Christ, K. (2005). Social capital and economic performance in the American states.
       Social Science Quarterly, 86
(4), 826-845.
Dasgupta, P. (2002). Social capital and economic performance: Analytics. Retrieved January 25, 2007,
       from http://www.socialcapitalgateway.org/NV-eng-growthgrowth.htm
Hjerppe, R. (2003), Social capital and economic growth. VATT Discussion Paper, Government Institute
       for Economic Research, Helsinki.
Onyx, J. & Bullen, P. (2000). Measuring social capital in five communities. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science,
       36
(1), 23-42.
Putnam, R.D., Leonardi, R., Nannetti, R.Y. (1993). Making democracy work: Civic traditions in modern Italy.
       Princeton University Press: Princeton.
Putnam, R. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. New York: Simon and Schuster.
Sabatini, F.(2005). The empirics of social capital and economic development: a critical perspective.
       University of Rome La Sapienza, Department of Public Economics, mimeo.
Saguaro Seminar (2001). The social capital community benchmark survey. Retrieved March 30, 2006,
       from http://www.cfsv.org/communitysurvey/
U.S. Census Bureau (2005). Waverly city, Iowa, population finder. Retrieved February 20, 2007,
       from http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/SAFFPopulation?_event=Search&_name=
       waverly&_state=04000US19&_county=waverly&_cityTown=waverly&_zip=&_sse=on&_lang=en&pctxt=fph
Woolcock, M. & Narayan, D. (2000). Social capital: Implications for development theory, research, and policy.
       The World Bank Research Observer, 15(2), 225-249.

Table 1
Social Capital Community Benchmark Survey Factors


FACTOR #

FACTOR NAME

1

Social Trust

2

Inter-racial Trust

3

Diversity of Friendships

4

Conventional Politics Participation

5

Protest Politics Participation

6

Civic Leadership

7

Associational Involvement

8

Informal Socializing

9

Giving and Volunteering

10

Faith-based Engagement

11

Equality of Civic Engagement Across Community

Note:From Saguaro Seminar (2001). Social Capital Community Benchmark Survey.

Table 2
Social Capital Factors, Waverly, Iowa, Survey

FACTOR #

FACTOR NAME

1

Leadership and Volunteering

2

Social Satisfaction

3

Assertiveness/ Diversity Acceptance

4

Informal Socializing

5

Task Initiative

6

Community Support

7

Quality of Life Perception

8

Public Well-being/ Support

9

Safety

10

Social Trust

11

Effort Extension

Table 3
Total Variance Explained

Table 4
Factor Loadings for 11 Related Factors after Oblique Rotation; Waverly, Iowa Survey.


FACTOR #

FACTOR NAME

SOCIAL
CAPITAL
TYPE

VARIABLES (Questions)

MEAN

FACTOR
LOADING

1

Leadership/
Volunteering

Bridging

On local management committee

1.94

0.822

 

 

 

Helps local group as volunteer

2.70

0.804

 

 

 

Active member of local organization

2.57

0.794

 

 

 

Taken part in a community project

1.55

0.794

 

 

 

Joined local emergency action

1.55

0.607

 

 

 

Attended community event

3.43

0.586

 

 

 

Helped organize new local service

1.79

0.570

2

Social
Satisfaction

Bridging

Part of team at work

3.31

0.780

 

 

 

Workmates are also friends

3.16

0.772

 

 

 

Fells part of community at work

3.17

0.752

 

 

 

Community feels like home

3.49

0.503

3

Assertiveness/
Diversity Acceptance

Bridging

Seeks mediation for dispute

2.89

0.719

 

 

 

Multiculturalism makes life better

2.85

0.667

 

 

 

Stranger accepted

3.03

0.640

 

 

 

Enjoys different lifestyles

2.83

0.564

 

 

 

Free to speak out

2.97

0.525

4

Informal
Socializing

Bonding

Dines socially on weekend

2.48

-0.749

 

 

 

Talked to people

3.37

-0.659

 

 

 

Phones friends

3.09

-0.615

5

Task Initiative

Bridging

Took initiative at work

3.76

0.779

 

 

 

Helped workmate

3.33

0.719

6

Community
Support

Bridging

Visited neighbor

2.89

0.774

 

 

 

Asks neighbor to help care for child

3.01

0.700

 

 

 

Favor for sick neighbor

2.40

0.683

7

Life Quality
 Perception

Bridging

Satisfied with life

3.15

0.727

 

 

 

Can find information

3.46

0.678

 

 

 

Valued by society

2.89

0.625

 

 

 

Sees friends when shopping

3.37

0.476

8

Public Well-
being/ Support

Bridging

By helping others you help yourself

3.61

0.848

9

Safety

Bridging

Area reputed safe

3.72

0.666

 

 

 

Gets help when needed

3.64

0.568

10

Social Trust

Bonding

Invite stranger in if car breaks down

2.71

-0.697

 

 

 

Most people can be trusted

2.92

-0.645

 

 

 

Feels safe in street after dark

3.41

-0.520

11

Effort
Extension

Bridging

Goes outside area to visit family

3.24

0.550

 

 

 

Picked up others' rubbish in public

3.09

-0.409


Table 5
Factor Correlations after Oblique Rotation
 

Table 6
Factor Scores by Social Capital Type


FACTOR #
FACTOR NAME

SOCIAL CAPITAL TYPE

FACTOR SCORE

1

Leadership/Volunteering

Bridging

2.22

2

Social Satisfaction

Bridging

3.28

3

Assertiveness/Diversity Acceptance

Bridging

2.91

4

Informal Socializing

Bonding

2.98

5

Task Initiative

Bridging

3.55

6

Community Support

Bridging

2.77

7

Life Quality Perception

Bridging

3.22

8

Public Well-being/ Support

Bridging

3.61

9

Safety

Bridging

3.68

10

Social Trust

Bonding

3.01

11

Effort Extension

Bridging

3.17

APPENDIX

Measuring Social Capital in Waverly, Iowa

Social Capital Questionnaire1

In the following questions please circle the most appropriate response 1, 2, 3 or 4.
1. Do you feel valued by society?
            No, not much                                                   Yes, very much
                        1                      2                      3                      4
2. If you were to die tomorrow, would you be satisfied with what your life has meant?
            No, not much                                                   Yes, very much

                        1                      2                      3                      4
3. Have you ever picked up other people’s garbage in a public place?
            No, never                                                         Yes, frequently
                        1                      2                      3                      4

4. Some say that by helping others you help yourself in the long run. Do you agree?
No, not much                                                   Yes, very much
                        1                      2                      3                      4
5. Do you help out a local group as a volunteer?
            No, not at all                                                    Yes, often (at least once a week)
                        1                      2                      3                      4
6. Do you feel safe walking down your street after dark?
            No, not much                                                   Yes, very much
                        1                      2                      3                      4
7. Do you agree that most people can be trusted?
            No, not much                                                   Yes, very much
                        1                      2                      3                      4
8. If someone’s car breaks down outside your house, do you invite them into your home to use the phone?
            No, not at all                                                    Yes, definitely
                        1                      2                      3                      4
9. Can you get help from friends when you need it?
            No, not at all                                                    Yes, definitely
                        1                      2                      3                      4
10. Does your area have a reputation for being a safe place?
            No, not at all                                                    Yes
                        1                      2                      3                      4
11. If you were caring for a child and needed to go out for a while, would you ask a neighbor for help?
            No, not at all                                                    Yes, definitely
                        1                      2                      3                      4
12. Have you visited a neighbor in the past week?
            No, not at all                                                    Yes, frequently
                        1                      2                      3                      4
13. Have you attended a local community event in the past 6 months (e.g., church event, school concert, craft exhibition)?
            No, not at all                                                    Yes, several (at least 3)
                        1                      2                      3                      4
14. Are you an active member of a local organization or club (e.g., sport, craft, social club)?
            No, not at all                                                    Yes, very active
                        1                      2                      3                      4
15. Does your local community feel like home?
            No, not at all                                                    Yes, definitely
                        1                      2                      3                      4
16. In the past week, how many phone conversations have you had with friends?
             None                                                   Many (at least 6)
                        1                      2                      3                      4
17. How many people did you talk to yesterday?
            None at all                                                       Many (at least 10)
                        1                      2                      3                      4
18. Over the weekend do you have lunch/dinner with other people outside your household?
            No, not much                                                   Yes, nearly always
                        1                      2                      3                      4
19. Do you go outside your local community to visit your family?
No, not much                                                   Yes, nearly always
                        1                      2                      3                      4

20. When you go shopping in your local area are you likely to run into friends and acquaintances?
            No, not much                                                   Yes, nearly always
                        1                      2                      3                      4
21. If you need information to make a life decision, do you know where to find that information?
            No, not at all                                                    Yes, definitely
                        1                      2                      3                      4
22. In the past 6 months, have you done a favor for a sick neighbor?
            No, not at all                                                    Yes, frequently (at least 5 times)
                        1                      2                      3                      4
23. Are you on a management committee or organizing committee for any local group or organization?
            No, not at all                                                    Yes, several (at least 3)
                        1                      2                      3                      4
24. In the past 3 years, have you ever joined a local community action to deal with an emergency?
            No, not at all                                                    Yes, frequently (at least 5 times)
                        1                      2                      3                      4
25. In the past 3 years have you ever taken part in a local community project or working bee?
            No, not at all                                                    Yes, very much
                        1                      2                      3                      4
26. Have you ever been part of a project to organize a new service in your area
(e.g., youth club, scout hall, child care, recreation for disabled)?
            No, not at all                                                    Yes, several times (at least 3)
                        1                      2                      3                      4
27. If you disagree with what everyone else agreed on, would you feel free to speak out?
            No, not at all                                                    Yes, definitely
                        1                      2                      3                      4
28. If you have a dispute with your neighbors (e.g., over fences or dogs), are you willing to seek mediation?
            No, not at all                                                    Yes, definitely
                        1                      2                      3                      4
29. Do you think that multiculturalism makes life in your area better?
            No, not at all                                                    Yes, definitely
                        1                      2                      3                      4
30. Do you enjoy living among people of different life styles?
            No, not at all                                                    Yes, definitely
                        1                      2                      3                      4
31. If a stranger, someone different, moves into your street, would they be accepted by the neighbors?
            No, not at all                                                    Yes, definitely
                        1                      2                      3                      4

The following five questions are for those in paid employment.
If you are not in paid employment, go to Question 37.

32. Do you feel part of the local geographic community where you work?
            No, not at all                                                    Yes, definitely
                        1                      2                      3                      4
33. Are your workmates also your friends?
            No, not at all                                                    Yes, definitely
                        1                      2                      3                      4
34. Do you feel part of a team at work?
            No, not at all                                                    Yes, definitely
                        1                      2                      3                      4

35. At work do you take the initiative to do what needs to be done even if no one asks you to?
            No, not at all                                                    Yes, definitely
                        1                      2                      3                      4
36. In the past week at work, have you helped a workmate even though it was not in your job description?
            No, not at all                                                    Yes, several times (at least 5)
                        1                      2                      3                      4

YOURSELF

In the following questions, please select the most appropriate response
(or write in the correct answer in the questions with blanks _________ ).
37. What is your gender?
            [ ] 1. Female                 [ ] 2. Male       
38. Are you employed?
            [ ] 1. Yes If yes, how many hours per week? ______
            [ ] 2. No
39. What is your age in years?   _____ years
40. Are you living in:
            [ ] 1. Private house, unit
            [ ] 2. Public housing
            [ ] 3. Other ________________
42. Are you renting your accommodation?
            [ ] 1. Yes
            [ ] 2. No
43. How long have you lived in your local area?  _____ years
44. Who do you live with?
            [ ] 1. alone                                            [ ] 5. extended or blended family
            [ ] 2. just partner                                   [ ] 6. friends
            [ ] 3. just children                                  [ ] 7. other ___________________
            [ ] 4. partner and children                      
45. Do you live with children under 18 years of age?
            [ ] 1. Yes          If yes: How many under school age? ______
                                               How many school age to 18? ______
            [ ] 2. No
46. What language do you prefer to speak at home?
            [ ] 1. English
            [ ] 2. Other _____________
47 What is the main source of income for your household?
            [ ] 1. Wages or salary
            [ ] 2. Pension or benefit
            [ ] 3. Other _____________________
48 What is your current income?
            [ ] 1. Less than $1,000
            [ ] 2. $1,001 to $14,999
            [ ] 3. $15,000 to $24,999
            [ ] 4. $25,000 to $34,999
            [ ] 5. $35,000 to $44,999
            [ ] 6. $45,000 to $54,999
            [ ] 7. $55,000 +

49. What are your qualifications?
            [ ] 1. Less than High School or equivalent
            [ ] 2. GED equivalent (High School completed)
            [ ] 3. Associates Degree
            [ ] 4. College degree or higher
50. Is your residence within the city limits?
            [ ]Yes   [ ]No

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  1. Adapted from Onyx, J., & Bullen, P. (2000). Measuring social capital in five communities. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 36(1), 23-42.
Home | About NSSA | Membership Form | Conferences & Seminars | Publications | Officers & Board | Newsletter | Announcements | Contact Us
Site Map | Terms and Conditions | Privacy Policy
Designed by Dreamwirkz Web Designs 2007 All Rights Reserved