2000115-Strengthening-Communities-with-Neighborhood-Data

194 Strengthening Communities with Neighborhood Data
to measure aspects of community social capital within the budget, time,
and skills constraints under which CBOs often must work. The effort
provides insight into the potential and limitations of particular CBOfriendly
measurement tools and approaches and highlights the complexity
of partnership dynamics, even under the conditions of relative trust,
mutual commitment, long-term relationships, and dialogue that are
often cited as key variables in successful researcher-community partnerships
(Israel et al. 2003; Wilson 2004). 6
Measurement focused on three dimensions of associational action
related to social capital: collective efficacy (Sampson, Raudenbush and
Earls 1997), neighborhood activism, and involvement in voluntary associations.
In addition to the theoretical arguments and evidence that suggest
a relationship between high levels of these constructs and certain
aspects of community well-being (Putnam 1993; Sampson et al. 1997,
2002), the constructs speak to the presence of reservoirs of neighborhood
strengths that can be harnessed for collective purpose and suggest
potential responses CBOs might launch in light of their absence.
Data collection relied on strategic convenience sampling methods. CBO
staff members’ local knowledge of community characteristics and dynamics
was used to select sites likely to provide access to respondents who would
approximate a representative sample. Results were compared with findings
from a random-sample survey collected as part of the Project on Human
Development in Chicago Neighborhoods. 7 For purposes of analysis, neighborhoods
were defined by aggregating the Project on Human Development’s
neighborhood clusters to conform to the neighborhood definitions
provided by the CBOs. This aggregation permitted findings to be presented
at the unit of analysis most broadly relevant to the CBOs and allowed for
within-community analyses at smaller neighborhood levels.
The partnership was organized as collaborative research in the sense
suggested by Nyden and Wiewel (1992); researchers and CBOs each
played a role in shaping the research and in collecting, analyzing, interpreting,
and using the data for their respective purposes. The division of
labor settled on sought to make the best use of CBO resources and expertise
while minimizing the amount of CBO staff time required and without
overtaxing staff capacities. CBO staff thus consulted on the development
of the survey instrument and strategies of administration, coordinated and
administered data collection, and acted as consumers and inter preters of
the data and evaluators of the process and products developed; researchers
were responsible for design, analysis, and reporting.