soul of the community september 2009 knight communities overall

Soul of the CommunitySeptember 2009

Knight Communities Overall


2

Copyright Standards

Copyright © 2009 Gallup, Inc. All rights reserved.

This document contains proprietary research, copyrighted materials, and literary property of Gallup, Inc. It is for the guidance of your company only and is not to be copied, quoted, published, or divulged to others outside of your organization. Gallup®, Q12®, The Gallup Path®, The Gallup Poll®, CE11®, SF34®, Business Impact Analysis™, SRI® and Gallup Consulting® are trademarks of Gallup, Inc. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners.

This document is of great value to both your organization and Gallup, Inc. Accordingly, international and domestic laws and penalties guaranteeing patent, copyright, trademark, and trade secret protection protect the ideas, concepts, and recommendations related within this document.

No changes may be made to this document without the express written permission of Gallup, Inc.

Knight Communities Overall Agenda

Community Attachment Overview Overall Measures of Biggest Problem and Life Evaluation The Drivers of Community Attachment Ratings on Domains of Community Attachment Domain Ratings by Comparison Groups Recommendations on Focus Areas and Groups CA by Demographic Groups Appendix (Survey Items, Community Lists, Key Terms)

3 Copyright © 2009 Gallup, Inc. All rights reserved.

Note: Speaking and discussion points are included in the notes section of many slides


4

Why Community Attachment?

The Soul of the Community project is a three-year study by Gallup funded by Knight Foundation that explores what community qualities influence residents’ loyalty and passion for where they live and how those feelings relate to indicators of community well-being such as local economic growth and vitality in 26 U.S. communities.

By pinpointing what drives residents’ loyalty and passion for where they live, this study helps local leaders influence residents’ feelings about their community — and potentially its well-being.

This project does not serve as a replacement for national economic policy, but it does make the case that residents’ attachment to where they live matters to community vitality. As the country emerges from the economic crisis, this project highlights what draws residents to their communities and that this emotional connection may help local economic growth.



5

Methodology

U.S. Census geography — Core-Based-Statistical Areas

– Larger communities were generally Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs) or Metropolitan Districts (MDs); smaller areas were Micropolitan Statistical Areas (µSAs)

– Long Beach, CA was defined by ZIP codes as the City of Long Beach

Random Digit Dialing (RDD) sample of households in each of the 26 Knight Foundation Communities

Telephone interview with about 400 randomly identified adults aged 18+

– Oversample of 1,500 interviews in Detroit, Charlotte, and Akron

Interviewing dates February 17 through April 25, 2009 About 400 completed interviews per community Data were weighted in each community to reflect the adult population by age, gender,

race, and ethnicity. Communities were put into their correct proportion based on total U.S. adult population.

Due to variances in the question scales, most data were rescaled to a 3-point scale for comparability (low, medium, high). A description of the specific items and the rescaled values can be found in the Appendix.



6

Community Attachment

AttitudinalCA = Loyalty + Passion

Community Attachment (CA) is comprised of two constructs: Attitudinal Loyalty to the community and their Passion for it. Each has equal weight in overall attachment. The CA metric is a mean score ranging from 1.00 to 5.00.

Community Attachment is an individual’s psychological connection with the community. It goes beyond their satisfaction with the community and extends to the passion and pride they take in living there.


+=Community

Attachment

Attitudinal Loyalty

Passion


CA links to key economic outcomes of communities, such that communities with higher CA also are higher on these outcomes. There are strong positive correlations to GDP and recent measures of high school dropout rates, with weaker correlations to population growth.

7

Attachment Matters to Knight Communities

CA Correlation to GDP Growth=.431; CA Correlation to Annual HS Dropout Rate=-.359CA Correlation to Population Growth=.171


*Event HS dropout rate - percent of students who left high school between the beginning of one school year and the beginning of the next without earning a high school diploma or its equivalent (e.g., a GED).


8

Community Attachment Groups

Highly loyal and connected to the community (CA Mean 4.50+)

Lack full loyalty and passion but see some positive aspects of community (CA Mean 3.50-4.49)

Unhappy with the community, its services and offerings, and likely to leave if they can (CA Mean <3.50)

CA Mean: 3.56 3.58

Attached

Neutral

Not Attached


Community Attachment is similar to 2008.


9

Community Attachment by Knight Community

Huge range in Community Attachment, both within and across Knight Groups — Bradenton is the most attached Knight community; Gary is the least attached.

Very Large Pop. — Very High Urban

Large Pop. — Very High Urban

Medium Pop. — Very High Urban

Medium Pop. — High Urban

Low/Medium Pop. — Low/Medium Urban

CA Mean:2009 3.52 3.62 3.11 3.82 3.74 3.73 3.85 4.04 3.92 3.89 3.42 2.80 3.84

2008 3.54 3.46 3.02 3.823.74 3.78 3.88 3.79 3.913.84 3.40 2.90 3.80

3.78 3.89 3.78 3.50 3.91 3.87 4.00 3.69 4.03 3.79 3.87 3.22 3.64 3.58

3.72 3.87 3.77 3.73 3.84 3.96 3.90 3.65 3.80 3.89 3.89 3.49 3.60 3.56


↑↓Indicate statistical difference from previous year at 95% level of confidence

↑ ↑ ↑ ↓↓


CA Mean: 3.31 3.37 3.81 3.80 3.51 3.53 3.78 3.74 3.77 3.73

3.56 3.58

10

Community Attachment by Knight GroupsThere is range in CA across the urbanicity/population groups. The largest urban areas remain least attached but improved since 2008, while the slightly smaller, but highly urban areas (San Jose, St. Paul, etc.) remain the most attached.

Very Large Pop. — Very High Urban

Large Pop. — Very High Urban

Medium Pop. — Very High Urban

Medium Pop. —High Urban

Low/Medium Pop. — Low/Medium

Urban


Knight Communities

Overall


↑

Knight Communities Overall Economy-related concerns (36%) eclipse crime related concerns in 2009.

Citizen Perception of Most Important Problem Facing Their Community Today

Three Responses Allowed

11

Most Important Problem Facing Community

Note: Only most frequently mentioned categories shown. May total to more than 100% due to multiple responses.


Knight Communities Overall Knight Communities Life Evaluation

12

Citizens in Knight Communities generally have similar perceptions of overall life evaluation as U.S. adults overall during the survey period. The national LEI was about 50% thriving during the same period in 2008.


*Gallup-Healthways Well-Being Index February 17-April 25, 2009


Younger, Students, Higher Education, Higher Income, More Thriving

13

Some Groups Thrive More

Age EmploymentGender


Education MaritalStatus

Income


Vocalize/promote future efforts and goals. Host seminars on area vision. Involve citizens to plan, drive, and share visions.

Positive Future Outlook Is Related to Attachment

Citizens who feel their community will be a much better place to live in 5 years are much more likely to be attached, as well as for key early- to mid-career segment of adults.

% Attached

Pe

rce

ptio

n o

f W

ha

t C

om

mu

nity

Will

Be

Lik

e t

o L

ive

in

5 Y

ea

rs F

rom

No

w


14


15

SATISFACTION

OUTLOOK

RECOMMEND

PRIDE

PERFECT PLACE

Community Attachment Model

The goal is increased Community Attachment. The Domains are the levers to move to improve CA. Drive down higher-level Domain constructs to specific outcomes.

CA Domains(Outcome) (Levers)

(Attitudinal Loyalty) (Passion)


COMMUNITY OFFERINGSBasic Services Leadership Education

Safety Social Offerings Aesthetics Economy

SOCIAL CAPITAL

CIVICINVOLVEMENT

EMOTIONALWELLNESSOPENNESS


Community Attachment (CA) links to community GDP and high school dropout rates and matters to community prosperity.– Linkages were confirmed and enhanced from 2008.– Each community has different strengths that can be promoted and

weaknesses that can be addressed.– There is a wide range of sentiments across communities and the

CA range is widening. There are specific, tactical actions that can be taken to address

CA opportunities.– Attachment is not all about economy and jobs; there are other

things that can be done to drive attachment to place.

Summary



Overall, 24% of citizens are attached to the Knight Community in which they live; 40% are not attached.

Top quartile communities for CA:

– Bradenton, FL - MSA

– Grand Forks, ND - MSA

– State College, PA - MSA

– Long Beach, CA - City

– Aberdeen, SD - µSA

– Boulder, CO - MSA

– Lexington, KY - MSA

Summary — CA

17

Bottom quartile communities for CA:– Gary, IN - MD

– Detroit, MI - MSA

– Macon, GA - MSA

– Akron, OH - MSA

– Wichita, KS - MSA

– Philadelphia, PA - MD


Knight Communities Overall Example Key Focus Areas and Potential Actions

18

New residents — not attached/connected– Make personal connection and ask for their involvement

Employed adults — the more satisfied at work, the more attached to the community

– Focus on assisting businesses in driving satisfaction and attachment with current company

Students — currently not attached/connected– Have business and community involve them in meaningful

ways while they are there to retain them Optimism — positive outlook for the future is related to

current attachment– Focus leadership and media on messaging/promotion and

citizen involvement in the future vision



2008 2009

0.492 0.519

0.530 0.517

0.512 0.501

0.466 0.436

0.412 0.398

0.408 0.388

0.408 0.338

0.322 0.292

0.216 0.189

0.136 0.155

0.058 0.037

19

Key Attachment Drivers

Economy

Openness

Emotional Wellness

Aesthetics

Civic Involvement


Social Capital

Education

Safety

Leadership

Basic Services


Drivers remained consistent year-over-year.

Social Offerings

The correlations of Domains to CA indicate the relative importance of each to overall Community Attachment. The domains are listed in order of strength.


2008 2009

0.507 0.522

0.534 0.520

0.485 0.513

0.420 0.437

0.412 0.362

0.402 0.335

0.344 0.294

0.281 0.266

0.230 0.244

0.136 0.150

0.058 0.061

Correlations to Overall CA Among College Graduates 18-44 Years of Age (n=1,181)



Community AttachmentEconomy

Openness

Emotional Wellness

Aesthetics

Civic Involvement

Social Capital

Education

Safety

Leadership

Basic Services

Social Offerings

Knight Communities Overall Strengths-Weaknesses Opportunity Map

21

Community Aesthetics and Education are areas of strength for Knight Communities that can be leveraged. Openness, Social Offerings, Basic Services, and Leadership offer the greatest areas for improvement to encourage attachment.


Correlation: The association or relationship between variables. A positive correlation means that as one increases, the other increases as well. A 1.0 indicates a perfect correlation.

Aesthetics 2008

Basic Services 2008Economy 2008

Education 2008

Civic Involvement 2008

Leadership 2008

Openness 2008

Safety 2008

Social Capital 2008

Social Offerings 2008Aesthetics 2009

Basic Services 2009

Economy 2009

Education 2009

Civic Involvement 2009

Leadership 2009

Openness 2009

Safety 2009 Social Capital 2009

Social Offerings 2009

Emotional Wellness 2009

0.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

0.60

1.35 1.45 1.55 1.65 1.75 1.85 1.95 2.05 2.15 2.25

StrengthCritical Opportunity

Performance (Mean Rating)

Imp

ort

ance

(Co

rrel

atio

n W

ith

Att

ach

men

t)

2009

2008

Knight Communities Overall More Than Just Economy

22

CommunityAvg. HH Inc.

Avg. Housing Cost (As # Times Avg. Inc.)

Unemployment Rate May ’09 (BLS)

CA Score

A 26.7 2.7 10.2%

B 32.9 2.9 9.8%

C 43.7 2.3 10.9%

D 52.7 8.7 6.0%

E 26.1 8.6 5.6%

F 26.6 3.4 9.2%

G 56.1 3.8 10.9%


Knight Communities Overall More Than Just Economy (continued)

23




CA Score

A Gary 26.7 2.7 10.2% 2.80 (-.10)

B Akron 32.9 2.9 9.8% 3.42 (+.02)

C Ft. Wayne 43.7 2.3 10.9% 3.64 (+.04)

D 52.7 8.7 6.0%

E 26.1 8.6 5.6%

F 26.6 3.4 9.2%

G 56.1 3.8 10.9%



24




CA Score

A 26.7 2.7 10.2%

B 32.9 2.9 9.8%

C 43.7 2.3 10.9%

D Boulder 52.7 8.7 6.0% 3.89 (+.05)

E State College 26.1 8.6 5.6% 4.00 (+.10)

F 26.6 3.4 9.2%

G 56.1 3.8 10.9%



25




CA Score

A 26.7 2.7 10.2%

B 32.9 2.9 9.8%

C 43.7 2.3 10.9%

D 52.7 8.7 6.0%

E 26.1 8.6 5.6%

F Macon 26.6 3.4 9.2% 3.22 (-.27)

G Bradenton 56.1 3.8 10.9% 4.04 (+.25)



26


Community Offerings Sub-Domains



↑

↓

Citizens’ connectedness to their communities has improved slightly as the economy has worsened, though expectedly, views of the local economy have decreased significantly.

Domains and Sub-Domains of CA


The structural, physical, and social offerings a community presents — without basic services, citizens can’t thrive.

27

Community Offerings

Community Offerings Sub-Domains



↓↓

Views of local community economy declined significantly, leading to a small overall decline in Community Offerings.


The physical beauty and availability of parks and green spaces for residents

28

Community Offerings Aesthetics



↑

Perceptions of availability of parks, playgrounds, and trails inched up in 2009.


Infrastructure supports such as highways, housing, and healthcare

29

Community Offerings Basic Services



↑ ↑

The national housing crisis has led to higher availability of affordable housing in local communities.


The local economic and employment conditions

30

Community Offerings Economy



↓

↓

↓

↓

↓↓

Very few citizens feel local economic conditions are strong or that it is a good time to find a job.


The quality of K-12 and colleges/universities in the community

31

Community OfferingsEducation



Citizens generally rate the quality of colleges and universities better than K-12 public schools.


The leadership and alignment of views of elected officials with citizens

32

Community Offerings Leadership



Citizens continue to give low ratings to local community leaders and elected city officials.


The local area crime and safety conditions

33

Community OfferingsSafety



Citizens perceive the safety around their home higher than that of the broader community.


The entertainment infrastructure for people to meet each other, and citizen caring

34

Community Offerings Social Offerings



Slightly more than one in five citizens feel their community is a great place to make friends and meet people; the community is also viewed as less caring.


While citizens perceive Knight Communities to be more welcoming to families with young children, openness to gays/lesbians and young, talented graduates has declined.

How welcoming the community is to different types of people

35

Openness

Community Good For…



↓ ↓↑

Knight Communities Overall Emotional Wellness


The mixture of mental and physical well-being items. The metric is an overall measure of personal and community well-being.


↓

Citizens are surprisingly (based on the economic downturn) slightly less stressed on a daily basis than they were a year ago.


The people-connections citizens have to each other

37

Social Capital



↑↑

Citizens spent more time with neighbors this year and are more connected to family.


What residents give to the community in terms of civic involvement

38

Civic Involvement


Voting behavior increased due to presidential election in Fall 2008.


↑

↑

39

Q: So What Can Community Leaders Do to Drive Community Attachment?

A: Focus on Key Sub-Groups

Several Examples of Sub-Groups Where Actions Could Be Focused


Knight Communities Overall Next to Laid-Off Residents, Students Are Least Attached


KnightCommunities

Overall


Connect students with businesses while in school through internships, community ties, problem solving, etc.

41

Good schools is a relative strength for most communities, but once they partake of the educational opportunities, many students plan to leave the state.


While Educational Opportunities Draw Students — Communities Need to Focus on Keeping Them


High Job Satisfaction Plays Role in Community Attachment

Work with business to learn how to better engage employees (e.g., host seminar on engaging employees, job swapping by local business, etc.).

Ov

era

ll S

ati

sfa

cti

on

Wit

h C

urr

en

t J

ob

42

The more satisfied employed adults are with their current company, the more likely they are to be attached to their community.



43

Communities Have Opportunity to Build Attachment With Newer Citizens

Lifelong residents are significantly less attached than shorter-term residents, particularly in the largest urban communities — may feel they didn’t have outside opportunities. But new residents aren’t yet connected.

Build residents’ attachment when they first move to the area. Leaders should contact new residents with a personal invitation to get involved.



44

Early- to Mid-Career Citizens Are Least Attached to Their Communities

Re

sp

on

de

nt

Ag

e

Find opportunities to connect early- to mid-career hires into community through events, sponsorships, and volunteering.

Attachment among college-age adults decreased from 2008, likely due to the economy. Those in the prime of their working years — those with the most options for jobs — are the least attached to their communities as well.


Knight Communities Overall Profile of Most Attached Citizens

Citizens Most Likely To Be Attached– 65 years of age or older

– College graduates

– Widowed, married/partnered residents

– Retired residents

– Homeowners

– Mid-tenure residents (6-19 years in community)

Citizens Least Likely To Be Attached– 18-34 years of age

– Single/never married, divorced/separated

– Non-retired/non-employed (includes laid off, students, and homemakers)

– Rural dwellers

– Middle-income residents ($45,000-$74,999 household income)



Community attachment is highest among older residents

46

CA by Citizen Age



↑


Community attachment is slightly higher among college graduates

47

CA by Educational Attainment




Widowed residents are generally most attached to the community, while single/never married and divorced/separated are least attached

48

CA by Marital Status



↑


Homeowners are more attached than renters

49

CA by Home Ownership



↑


Mid-term residents are most attached to their community overall. Newer residents in communities decreased in attachment from 2008

50

CA by Years Lived in Community



↑


Retired residents are generally more attached to the community, while non-retired/ non-employed citizens are least attached

51

CA by Employment Status



↑


Urban area dwellers within communities increased in attachment, while those living in rural areas remain least attached

52

CA by Community Area Type



↑


Higher income residents are generally most attached to the community, although significant increases occurred among lower income residents

53

CA by Total Household Income



↑↑


Domain Comparisons by Urbanicity Groups



The structural, physical, and social offerings a community presents — without basic services, citizens can’t thrive.

55

Community Offerings



Citizens in different size communities have similar views of their community’s offerings, though perceptions have declined for the smallest and least urban communities.

↓ ↓


The physical beauty and availability of parks and green spaces for residents

56

Community Offerings Aesthetics


The largest urban communities and the medium population/high urban areas have the lowest perceptions of their community’s aesthetics, though it has increased slightly for the largest urban communities.↑↓Indicate statistical difference from previous year at 95% level of confidence

↑


Infrastructure supports such as highways, housing, and healthcare

57

Community Offerings Basic Services



↑


The local economic and employment conditions


Perceptions of the local economy decline, echoing national sentiments. Relatively lower decline in largest urban populated areas putting all community types on near-equal perceived economic footing.

Community Offerings Economy


↓ ↓ ↓↓ ↓ ↓


The quality of K-12 and colleges/universities in the community

59

Community Offerings Education



Medium population, very high urban areas (including many southern communities such as Tallahassee, Lexington, and Wichita) have lower perceptions of the quality of their schools.


The leadership and alignment of views of elected officials with citizens

60

Community OfferingsLeadership



↓


The local area crime and safety conditions

61

Community Offerings Safety




The entertainment infrastructure for people to meet each other, and citizen caring

62

Community OfferingsSocial Offerings




How welcoming the community is to different types of people

63

Openness




The mixture of mental and physical well-being items. The metric is an overall measure of personal and community well-being.

64

Emotional Wellness


↓


The people-connections citizens have to each other

65

Social Capital



What residents give to the community in terms of civic involvement — Increased in all communities due to national election Fall 2008

66

Civic Involvement


↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑

Civic involvement, driven by voting during the most recent election, increased in all community types.



Appendix



68

Question/Reporting Scales

Construct Q Number Question Wording Original Scale Low Medium HighCOMMUNITY LOYALTY

Q1 Overall satisfaction with community

5-point satisfaction 1-3 4 5

Q2 Likely to recommend community to others

5-point likelihood 1-3 4 5

Q6a Outlook for community 5 years from now

5-point much better to much worse

PASSIONQ3-B Perfect community for

people like me5-point agreement 1-3 4 5

Q3-A Proud to live in community 5-point agreement 1-3 4 5


Knight Communities Overall Question/Reporting Scales(continued)


Construct Q Number Question Wording Original Scale Low Medium High

COMMUNITY OFFERINGS

Basic Services Q7-C Highway and freeway system 5-point very good to very bad 1-3 4 5Q7-K Availability of quality healthcare 5-point very good to very bad 1-3 4 5

Q7-D Availability of affordable housing 5-point very good to very bad 1-3 4 5Leadership Q15a-B Community leaders represent my

interests5-point agreement 1-3 4 5

Q7-L Leadership of elected city officials 5-point very good to very bad 1-3 4 5

Education Q7-F Quality of public schools (K-12) 5-point very good to very bad 1-3 4 5Q7-G Quality of colleges and universities 5-point very good to very bad 1-3 4 5

Safety Q19 Level of community crime 5-point high to low 1-3 4 5Q18 Safe to walk within 1 mile of home 5-point completely safe to not

at all safe1-3 4 5

Aesthetics Q7-A Parks, playgrounds, and trails 5-point very good to very bad 1-3 4 5Q7-B Beauty or physical setting 5-point very good to very bad 1-3 4 5

Economy Q9 Economic conditions 5-point very good to very bad 1-3 4 5Q10 Economy getting better/worse 3-point better/same/worse worse same better

Q7-E Availability of job opportunities 5-point very good to very bad 1-3 4 5

Q14 Company hiring momentum 3-point hiring/no change/letting go

worse same better

Q15 Job provides income needed 5-point agreement 1-3 4 5

Q15a-A A good time to find a job in my area 5-point agreement 1-3 4 5Social Offerings Q7-H Vibrant nightlife 5-point very good to very bad 1-3 4 5

Q7-I Good place to meet people and make friends

5-point very good to very bad 1-3 4 5

Q7-M Other people care about each other 5-point very good to very bad 1-3 4 5


70

Question/Reporting Scales (continued)Construct Q Number Question Wording Original Scale Low Medium HighCOMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT

Q22-A Volunteer 2-point yes/no no yesQ22-C Voted in local election 2-point yes/no no yesQ22-B Attend local community meetings 2-point yes/no no yesQ22-D Work with residents to make

change2-point yes/no no yes

OPENNESSQ8-F Good place for senior citizens 5-point very good to very bad 1-3 4 5Q8-C Good place for racial and ethnic

minorities5-point very good to very bad 1-3 4 5

Q8-D Good place for families with kids 5-point very good to very bad 1-3 4 5Q8-E Good place for gays/lesbians 5-point very good to very bad 1-3 4 5Q8-A Good place for talented college

graduates5-point very good to very bad 1-3 4 5

Q8-B Good place for immigrants from other countries

5-point very good to very bad 1-3 4 5

SOCIAL CAPITALQ23 Belong to formal/informal

groups/clubs8-point 0 to 7+ groups 0 1-2 3+

Q26 Spend time with neighbors 7-point never to about every day

Once year or

less

Several times

wk/dailyQ24 Close friends in the community 6-point none to all 1-2 3-5 6+Q25 Family in area 6-point none to all 1-2 3-5 6+



71

Question/Reporting Scales (continued)Construct Q Number Question Wording Original Scale Low Medium HighEMOTIONAL WELLNESS

Q16-A In my community I am treated with respect

5-point strongly agree to strongly disagree

1-3 4 5

Q16-B I felt well-rested yesterday 5-point strongly agree to strongly disagree

1-3 4 5

Q16-C I felt a high level of stress yesterday


3-5 2 1

Q16-D I learned or did something interesting yesterday


1-3 4 5



72

Knight Foundation Communities

*Oversampled communities


Aberdeen, SD – µSA Akron, OH* – MSA Biloxi, MS – MSA Boulder, CO – MSA Bradenton, FL – MSA Charlotte, NC* – MSA Columbia, SC – MSA Columbus, GA – MSA Detroit, MI* – MSA Duluth, MN – MSA Fort Wayne, IN – MSA Gary, IN – MD

Grand Forks, ND – MSA Lexington, KY – MSA City of Long Beach, CA Macon, GA – MSA Miami, FL – MD Milledgeville, GA – µSA Myrtle Beach, SC – MSA Palm Beach, FL – MD Philadelphia, PA – MD San Jose, CA – MSA St. Paul, MN – MSA State College, PA – MSA Tallahassee, FL – MSA Wichita, KS – MSA

Knight Communities Overall Knight Foundation Communities

73

Bradenton, FL - MSA

Fort Wayne, IN - MSA

Aberdeen, SD - µSA

Biloxi, MS - MSA

Duluth, MN - MSA

St. Paul, MN - MSA

Macon, GA - MSA

Milledgeville, GA - µSA

Myrtle Beach, SC - MSA Columbia, SC - MSA

State College, PA - MSA

Philadelphia, PA - MD

Lexington, KY - MSAWichita, KS - MSA

Miami, FL - MD

Palm Beach, FL - MD

Charlotte, NC - MSA

San Jose, CA - MSA

Detroit, MI - MSA

Gary, IN - MD

City of Long Beach, CA

Akron, OH - MSA

Boulder, CO - MSA

Very High Urban – Very Large Population

Very High Urban – Large Population

Very High Urban – Medium Population

High Urban – Medium Population

Medium/Low Urban – Medium/Low Population

LEGEND Tallahassee, FL - MSA

Columbus, GA - MSA

Grand Forks, ND - MSA



74

Knight Community Comparison Groups

5 comparison groups were created among the 26 Knight Foundation communities based on their urbanicity (as defined by the U.S. Census) and relative adult population size.

Goal of creating groups is for comparisons of cities within groups (rather than across group comparisons).


1Very Large Population — Very High Urban

Detroit, MI – MSA; Philadelphia, PA – MD; Miami, FL – MD

2 Large Population — Very High Urban

St. Paul, MN – MSA; San Jose, CA – MSA; Palm Beach, FL – MD; Charlotte, NC – MSA

3 Medium Population —Very High Urban

Bradenton, FL – MSA; Akron, OH – MSA; Gary, IN – MD; City of Long Beach; Boulder, CO – MSA

4 Medium Population —High Urban

Columbia, SC – MSA; Wichita, KS – MSA; Lexington, KY – MSA; Tallahassee, FL – MSA; Columbus, GA – MSA

5 Medium/Low Population — Medium/Low Urban

Fort Wayne, IN – MSA; Duluth, MN – MSA; Macon, GA – MSA; Biloxi, MS – MSA; Grand Forks, ND – MSA; Myrtle Beach, SC – MSA; State College, PA – MSA; Milledgeville, GA – µSA; Aberdeen, SD – µSA


75

Key Terms

Community Attachment (CA) – Residents’ psychological connection with the community, specifically defined as their loyalty and passion for the place.

Attitudinal Loyalty – The overall contentment of citizens with their community, their outlook for the community’s future, and likelihood to recommend the community to others.

Passion – The pride and enthusiasm citizens have toward their community, and their place in it.

Domains – Perception of community qualities that drive overall CA and can be impacted locally.

Social Capital – the people-connections citizens have to each other.

Openness – how welcoming the community is to different types of people.

Civic Involvement – what residents give to the community in terms of civic involvement.

Emotional Wellness – the mixture of mental and physical well-being items. The metric is an overall measure of personal and community well-being.

Basic Services – infrastructure supports such as highways, housing, and healthcare.

Economy – local economic and employment conditions.

Safety – local area crime and safety conditions.

Leadership – rating of leadership and belief that elected officials represent resident’s interest.

Education – quality of K-12 and colleges/universities in the community.

Aesthetics – physical beauty and availability of parks and green spaces for residents.

Social Offerings – entertainment infrastructure for people to meet each other, and citizen caring.



76

Attitudinal Loyalty

Attitudinal Loyalty measures the overall contentment of citizens with their community, their outlook for the community’s future, and likelihood to recommend the community to others.



77

Passion

Passion describes the pride and enthusiasm citizens have toward their community, and their place in it.



78

Community DomainsGallup identified five key Domains and seven Sub-Domains related to Community Attachment. These domains identify aspects of the community which drive attachment and can be impacted through local-level initiatives by community leaders and businesses.


Community Offerings — the basic factors without which citizens cannot thrive.

Emotional Wellness — the personal well-being of individuals.

Social Capital — the people-connections citizens have to each other.

Openness — how welcoming the community is to different types of people.

Civic Involvement — what the residents give to the community in terms of civic involvement.


2008 2009

0.495 0.589

0.400 0.480

0.512 0.459

0.418 0.429

0.425 0.387

0.527 0.367

0.567 0.317

0.300 0.280

0.415 0.223

0.032 0.115

0.082 0.062

Correlations to Overall CA Among Students; Openness is key for students (n=283)




Economy

Openness

Emotional Wellness

Aesthetics

Social Capital

Civic Involvement

Leadership

Safety

Education

Basic Services

Social Offerings


2008 2009

0.535 0.523

0.546 0.516

0.502 0.481

0.421 0.356

0.381 0.380

0.464 0.482

0.451 0.360

0.257 0.281

0.251 0.191

0.044 0.007

0.146 0.098

Correlations to Attached Citizens — Residents Aged 25-44Social Offerings and Openness most influence those aged 25-44 (n=3,077)




Economy

Openness

Emotional Wellness

Aesthetics

Social Capital

Civic Involvement

Leadership

Safety

Education

Basic Services

Social Offerings

soul of the community september 2009 knight communities overall

Documents