"In his magisterial Great American City, Robert J. Sampson puts social scientific data behind an argument that we all feel and experience everyday: the neighborhood you live in has a big effect on your life and the city you live in. Not only does your neighborhood determine where your nearest hospital is, what kind of schools your children can attend, or how many police officers you might encounter (and how they respond to you), it affects how you feel, how you think about the world and your place in it. Like many sociologists before him, Sampson looks to Chicago to make his insightful interventions, based on extensive data collected across the city's diverse neighborhoods. This edition includes a new afterword by Sampson reflecting on changes in Chicago and the country that have occurred since the book was initially published. He notes the increase in gun violence, both among civilians and police killings of civilians, as well as steady or growing rates of segregation despite an increase in diversity. With these changes have come new research, much of it a continuation or elaboration of the work in Great American City. He updates readers on the status of the research initiative that serves as the basis of Great American City, the Project on Human Development in Chicago Neighborhoods (PHDCN), and summarizes how scholars have taken up his work. Many of these scholars have new tools at their disposal with the rise of big data; Sampson remarks on these changes in the field"--

Battin tests collective efficacy theory by accounting for additional measures of informal social control and social ties. Past social disorganization theory and collective efficacy theory research utilized community members to measure community levels of informal social control and social ties. Battin's work deviates from the previous methodology and incorporates real estate agents as resident proxies to test collective efficacy theory and its relationship with perceptions of crime. The data provide support for collective efficacy theory and the use of resident proxies.

Neighborhood disorder is a social welfare issue that is associated with multiple negative outcomes for individuals including increased substance use, increased exposure to violence and crime, and mental health challenges. Collective efficacy is a widely studied predictor of positive community-level outcomes including lower levels of neighborhood disorder. However, relatively few community interventions based on collective efficacy have been developed. Further, studies evaluating interventions based on collective efficacy have reported mixed findings. A possible reason for the difficulty of operationalizing collective efficacy may be our current conceptualization of collective efficacy. The current understanding of collective efficacy views the concept as a combination of social cohesion and informal social control. However, recent research suggests that social cohesion and informal social control are unique constructs that are best conceptualized and measured separately. Further, research suggests that there may be factors that mediate the relationship between social cohesion and informal social control.This dissertation seeks to advance our understanding of collective efficacy in order to increase its utility for social work practice. A key component of collective efficacy is a community’s shared belief that collective action will be successful. Although this belief has been discussed conceptually, it has yet to be measured in collective efficacy research. To address this limitation, I develop a concept called, “Mutual efficacy,” which is defined as, “community members’ beliefs that collective action will be successful at attaining group goals.”This dissertation utilizes data from the Seattle Neighborhood and Crime Survey (SNCS) to explore mutual efficacy’s role as a mediator between social cohesion and informal social control. The SNCS is a survey of 3,365 residents in Seattle, Washington. The factor structure of social cohesion, mutual efficacy, and informal social control were studied using exploratory factor analysis and multilevel confirmatory factor analysis. A structural model was then used to test whether or not mutual efficacy mediates the relationship between social cohesion and informal social control, and if this model predicted lower levels of neighborhood disorder. This mediation model (referred to as the mutual efficacy model) was then compared to the current model of collective efficacy.The results from both factor analyses suggest that mutual efficacy is a concept that is unique from, but positively associated with social cohesion and informal social control. Further, mutual efficacy partially mediates the relationship between social cohesion and informal social control. The mutual efficacy model also predicted lower levels of neighborhood disorder and fit the data better than the current model of collective efficacy. These findings can inform community practice that seeks to facilitate collective action in communities. The results also highlight a need to conduct further research on mutual efficacy.

Why, even in the same high-crime neighborhoods, do robbery, drug dealing, and assault occur much more frequently on some blocks than on others? One popular theory is that a weak sense of community among neighbors can create conditions more hospitable for criminals, and another proposes that neighborhood disorder—such as broken windows and boarded-up buildings—makes crime more likely. But in his innovative new study, Peter K. B. St. Jean argues that we cannot fully understand the impact of these factors without considering that, because urban space is unevenly developed, different kinds of crimes occur most often in locations that offer their perpetrators specific advantages. Drawing on Chicago Police Department statistics and extensive interviews with both law-abiding citizens and criminals in one of the city’s highest-crime areas, St. Jean demonstrates that drug dealers and robbers, for example, are primarily attracted to locations with businesses like liquor stores, fast food restaurants, and check-cashing outlets. By accounting for these important factors of spatial positioning, he expands upon previous research to provide the most comprehensive explanation available of why crime occurs where it does.

Collective efficacy, which can be broken down to social cohesion and informal social control, is a crucial component in the healthy social life of urban neighborhoods. On a neighborhood level, collective efficacy correlates with shared community trust and the ability to speak out about crime or disorderly physical characteristics. Community gardens have been acknowledged for their collective efficacy building potential because they specifically promote collaboration and active participation, both of which are necessary for social cohesion and informal social control. Community gardens can vary greatly in size, function, location, and involvement making it unclear whether a community garden by itself is sufficient to enhance the surrounding residents' collective efficacy or whether specific programming is needed. This project explores how a community garden can enhance collective efficacy in an urban neighborhood. Through community collaboration in a garden design process, the project examines the community garden environmental factors that can contribute to neighborhood-wide collective efficacy. It also analyzes the community's ability to create their own collective efficacy through active design processes. The result is a projective community garden design that is intended to enhance collective efficacy in surrounding neighborhoods. Data from paper surveys, online surveys, and focus group sessions was collected over several weeks in the target area. Participants' current collective efficacy levels were assessed as well as their opinions about the importance of certain community garden elements and ideas for future garden design. While community garden presence in a neighborhood was not always associated with higher collective efficacy, gardens that were multi-functional and met social needs were more likely to be associated with higher levels. Respondents that participate in community gardening for job training and inter-cultural communication reported the highest levels of collective efficacy, suggesting that the reason behind garden participation is significant. The data suggests that gardens with a diverse range of functions and participants are the most conducive to fostering neighborhood collective efficacy.

Improve student outcomes with collective teacher efficacy. If educators’ realities are filtered through the belief that they can do very little to influence student achievement, then it is likely these beliefs will manifest in their practice. The solution? Collective efficacy (CE)—the belief that, through collective actions, educators can influence student outcomes and increase achievement. Educators with high efficacy show greater effort and persistence, willingness to try new teaching approaches, and attend more closely to struggling students’ needs. This book presents practical strategies and tools for increasing student achievement by sharing: Rationale and sources for establishing CE Conditions and leadership practices for CE to flourish Professional learning structures/protocols

Collective efficacy is a neighborhood-level concept in which community members create a sense of agency and assume ownership for the state of their local community. This concept is one of several forms of formal and informal social control that predict the overall functioning of a community. In this book, the authors examine collective efficacy and crime in eight Miami-Dade County, Florida neighborhoods, based on data they collected from across the country and in the Miami-Dade neighborhoods themselves. They discuss findings relevant to the theory of collective efficacy itself, ramifications for its use within communities, and make recommendations for future research and for translating these results into actionable, crime prevention activities.

The aim of this encyclopedia is to provide a comprehensive reference work on scientific and other scholarly research on the quality of life, including health-related quality of life research or also called patient-reported outcomes research. Since the 1960s two overlapping but fairly distinct research communities and traditions have developed concerning ideas about the quality of life, individually and collectively, one with a fairly narrow focus on health-related issues and one with a quite broad focus. In many ways, the central issues of these fields have roots extending to the observations and speculations of ancient philosophers, creating a continuous exploration by diverse explorers in diverse historic and cultural circumstances over several centuries of the qualities of human existence. What we have not had so far is a single, multidimensional reference work connecting the most salient and important contributions to the relevant fields. Entries are organized alphabetically and cover basic concepts, relatively well established facts, lawlike and causal relations, theories, methods, standardized tests, biographic entries on significant figures, organizational profiles, indicators and indexes of qualities of individuals and of communities of diverse sizes, including rural areas, towns, cities, counties, provinces, states, regions, countries and groups of countries.