Resource Guide
Project on Human Development in Chicago Neighborhoods

Community Surveys

The Community Surveys measured the structural conditions and organization of neighborhoods in Chicago with respect to the dynamic structure of the local community, the neighborhood organizational and political structures, cultural values, information and formal social control, and social cohesion. The first Community Survey was conducted in 1994-1995 and consisted of household interviews with 8,782 adult Chicago residents from 343 neighborhood clusters.

Sampling

Neighborhood Clusters: The PHDCN Scientific Directors defined neighborhoods spatially, as a collection of people and institutions occupying a subsection of a larger community. The project collapsed 847 census tracts in the city of Chicago to form 343 neighborhood clusters (NCs). The predominant guideline in formation of the NCs was that they should be as ecologically meaningful as possible, composed of geographically contiguous census tracts, and internally homogenous on key census indicators. The project settled on an ecological unit of about 8,000 people, which is smaller than the 77 established community areas in Chicago (of which the average size is almost 40,000 people), but large enough to approximate local neighborhoods. Geographic boundaries (e.g., railroad tracks, parks, and freeways) and knowledge of Chicago's neighborhoods guided this process.

The 343 NCs contain all of the dwelling units in Chicago and every NC was represented in the sample. Thus, the NCs are "strata" rather than sampling units for purposes of the Community Survey. The basic design for the Community Survey had three stages:

  1. City blocks were sampled within each NC
  2. Dwelling units were sampled within blocks
  3. One adult resident was sampled within each selected dwelling unit.

Although this three-stage design within each stratum is straightforward, the sample size and method of sampling differed depending upon whether an NC had been selected for the project's Longitudinal Cohort Study (LCS): 80 NCs were selected for the LCS and the remaining 263 were not selected for the LCS.

NCs Not Selected for the Longitudinal Cohort Study

  • The target sample size for each NC that was not selected for the LCS was 20. The sampling plan called for selection of nine blocks within an NC, three dwelling units within a block, and one resident within a dwelling unit, potentially producing 9 x 3 = 27 interviews. Given a dwelling unit occupancy rate of .90 and a response rate of .85, one would expect about 20 completed interviews for each of the NCs not selected for the LCS.
  • Blocks were selected with probability proportional to size; dwelling units within blocks were selected at random; and persons within dwelling units were also selected at random. The tasks at each stage are described below.
  • Selecting blocks: The method of selection was a systematic random sample with probability proportional to the number of dwelling units in the block. To achieve this, blocks were listed in block number order. Associated with each block was the number of dwelling units in that block as given in the 1990 Census, along with the cumulative total number of dwelling units. Nine equal intervals between a and N + a were computed, where N is the number of dwelling units in the NC and a is a random number between 0 and N19. Associated with the endpoint of each interval was a particular block, and that block was selected into the sample. (If a block contained more than N19 dwelling units, that block was selected with certainty and removed from the list. A new interval was then constructed having width N18 and a systematic random sample of size 8 was drawn. Also, blocks with fewer than three dwelling units were treated as if they had three dwelling units.)
  • Selecting dwelling units: All of the dwelling units within a selected block were listed and, from the list, three were selected at random.
  • Selecting respondents: Within each selected dwelling unit, a list of persons 18 years old and older was obtained, and one person from that list was selected at random for the interview.

NCs Selected for the Longitudinal Cohort Study

  • For the 80 NCs selected for the LCS, the target sample size was 50. The Community Survey sampling plan for these NCs built upon work already done in selecting blocks for the LCS. Within these blocks, a systematic random sample of, on average, 65.4 dwelling units was selected with one respondent sampled per dwelling unit. Again, given a .90 dwelling-unit occupancy rate and a response rate of .85, this sample was expected to yield about 50 completed interviews per sample NC.
  • Selecting of blocks: These blocks constituted a simple random sample of all blocks in the NC.
  • Selecting dwelling units: A systematic random sample of dwelling units was drawn within the set of listed blocks in each sample NC. First, dwelling units were sorted by census tract, by block group within census tract, by block within block group, and by address within block. Equal intervals of length K165.4 between β and K + β were computed, where K is the number of addresses in the NC and β is a random number between 0 and K/65.4. Associated with the endpoint of each interval was a particular address, and that address was selected into the sample.
  • Selecting respondents: Selecting respondents: Just as in the case of nonsample NCs, a list of persons 18 years old and older was obtained within each selected dwelling unit, and one person from that list was selected at random for the interview.

Units of Analysis

The 1994-1995 PHDCN Community Survey (ICPSR 2766) consists of two data files. In the first data file (Part 1), each record is an individual. All individuals are assigned to a Neighborhood Cluster (NC). In the second data file (Part 2), each record is a neighborhood cluster.

Instruments and Measures

The Community Survey collected data from a cross-sectional survey of Chicago residents in 1994. The survey gathered information from adult residents of Chicago on their perceptions of the neighborhoods in which they lived. The survey questionnaire was a multidimensional assessment of the structural conditions and organization of the neighborhoods. Data collection consisted of a household interview of residents aged 18 and older to assess key neighborhood dimensions, including the dynamic structure of the local community, organizational and political structure, cultural values, informal social control, formal social control, and social cohesion. 

Variables included measures of the best and worst aspects of living in Chicago, how long residents had lived in a particular neighborhood, characteristics of their neighborhood, including types of social service agencies available, and if they would consider moving to a different neighborhood and why. Other community variables measured the relationships among neighbors, including how many neighbors a respondent would recognize, how often neighbors socialized, and how often neighbors participated in other activities together. Variables that captured neighborhood social order included respondents' perceptions of neighborhood problems such as litter, graffiti, drinking, drugs, and excessive use of force by police. Respondents were also asked about their normative beliefs regarding violence, money, and various children's behaviors. Victimization variables covered how often the respondent was the victim of a fight with a weapon, a violent argument, a gang fight, sexual assault, robbery, theft, or vandalism. Other variables measured fear of crime and attitudes toward the police. Demographic variables included age, gender, education, living arrangement, national origin, and employment status.

Scales

  • Social Disorder
    1. Q29A how much of a problem is litter
    2. Q29B how much of a problem is graffiti
    3. Q29C how much of a problem are vacant areas
    4. Q29D how much of a problem is drinking in public
    5. Q29E how much of a problem is people selling or using drugs
    6. Q29F how much of a problem is groups hanging out causing trouble
  • Perceived Violence
    1. Q30A in past 6 months how often a fight with a weapon
    2. Q30B in past 6 months how often a violent argument between neighbors
    3. Q30C in past 6 months how often a gang fight
    4. Q30D in past 6 months how often a sexual assault or rape
    5. Q30E in past 6 months how often a robbery or mugging
  • Social Cohesion
    1. Q11B this is a close-knit neighborhood
    2. Q11E people are willing to help neighbors
    3. Q11F people don't get along
    4. Q11K people in neighborhood do not share same values
    5. Q11M people in neighborhood can be trusted
  • Social Control
    1. Q12A neighbors do something about kids skipping school
    2. Q12B neighbors do something about kids defacing building
    3. Q12C neighbors scold child not showing respect
    4. Q12E neighbors break up a fight in front of your house
    5. Q12F neighbors organize to keep a local fire station
  • Neighborhood Decline
    1. Q44A in past 5 yrs personal safety in your neighborhood has
    2. Q44B in past 5 yrs looks of the neighborhood have
    3. Q44C in past 5 yrs people living in the neighborhood have
    4. Q44D in past 5 yrs level of police protection in the neighborhood has
  • Intergenerational Closure
    1. Q11N parents know their children's friends
    2. Q11P adults know who local children are
    3. Q11D children look up to adults in neighborhood
    4. Q11T parents generally know each other
    5. Q11G adults watch out for children
  • Reciprocated Exchange
    1. Q18 how often do people do favors for each other
    2. Q21 how often do you have parties
    3. Q19 how often do you watch others' property
    4. Q22 how often do visit each others' homes
    5. Q20 how often do you ask advice of neighbors
  • Child-Centered Social Control
    1. Q12A neighbors do something about kids skipping school
    2. Q12B neighbors do something about kids defacing building
    3. Q12C neighbors scold child not showing respect

References

Raudenbush, Stephen W., and Robert J. Sampson. "Ecometrics: Toward a Science of Assessing Ecological Settings, with Application to the Systematic Social Observation of Neighborhoods," Sociological Methodology, Vol. 29 (1999): 1-41.

Sampson, Robert J., and Stephen W. Raudenbush. "Seeing Disorder: Neighborhood Stigma and the Social Construction of 'Broken Windows,'" Social Psychology Quarterly, Vol. 67, 4 (2004): 319-342.

Sampson, Robert J., and Stephen W. Raudenbush. "Systematic Social Observation of Public Spaces: A New Look at Disorder in Urban Neighborhoods," The American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 105, 3 (November 1999): 603-651.

Sampson, Robert J., Jeffrey D. Morenoff, and Felton Earls. "Beyond Social Capital: Spatial Dynamics of Collective Efficacy for Children," American Sociological Review, Vol. 64, 5 (October 1999): 633-660.