![]() |
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
![]() |
![]() |
||||||||
|
|||||||||
![]() |
Introduction During the past decade, a great deal of interest has focused on exploring trends in social capital across communities as well as on the relationship between social capital and health. Social capital is defined as the structures of community organization that define community norms, trust and reciprocity and shape levels of civic participation. The elements of social capital are believed to function together to determine social networks, cooperation and mutual benefit within a community. The following article examines the relationship between social capital and socioeconomic and demographic characteristics across communities in Southeastern Pennsylvania (SEPA) using data from PHMC’s 2002 Southeastern Pennsylvania Household Health Survey. Survey Findings In SEPA, one out of five adults (20.8%) have high social capital or feel very connected with their neighbors and support their community through various civic efforts; this percentage represents 508,300 adults in the region. (n1) Nearly one half of SEPA adults (48.4% or 1,181,400 people) feel only somewhat connected to neighbors and may or may not participate in community activities. One out of three adults in the region (30.8% or 750,955 people) have low social capital or do not feel connected to their neighbors and do not participate in community activities. The data shows that levels of social capital in SEPA vary by socioeconomic and demographic subgroups, including race, ethnicity, age, and poverty status. Poverty, in particular, plays a very important role in determining social capital, however, it is not the only factor and cannot explain all variation in social capital across the region and between racial, ethnic, and age groups.
Level of social capital also varies by county and across neighborhoods within counties. In SEPA, Philadelphia County has the lowest percentage of adults 18 years of age and older with high social capital; approximately only one out of eight adults in Philadelphia have high social capital (14.4% or 133,138 people). While there is not a great deal of variation in level of social capital across the four suburban counties surrounding Philadelphia, Chester County has the greatest percentage of adults 18 years of age and older with high social capital. One out of four adults in Chester County have high social capital (26.4% or 74,363 people).
Examining specific factors that make up social capital provides some insight into the variation in social capital among communities in SEPA. In particular, differences in social capital are most noticeable when comparing urban versus suburban communities.
The above findings illustrate that the level of social capital one has varies among socio-economic and demographic populations in SEPA as well as across counties. Using these initial trends as the groundwork, health planners and policy makers can begin to explore how social capital changes overtime. In the next few months, PHMC staff will present information regarding the relationship of social capital and health among adults in the region. For more information regarding social capital in the region, please contact Francine Axler, Senior Research Associate at 215-985-2521 or by email at Francine@phmc.org. Notes (n1) Creation of a scale to measure social capital included several steps. Each social capital questions in PHMC’s 2002 SEPA Household Health Survey was reviewed for inclusion in the scale as determined through correlations with other indicators. The questions used to create the scale included respondents’ sense of belonging in their neighborhood, sense of trust in neighbors, whether respondents felt that their neighbors were willing to help each other, whether neighbors had ever worked together, and whether respondents participated in community organizations, groups, and events in their neighborhood. Two questions were not included in the scale. Questions regarding whether or not there was a reason for respondents’ reported lack involvement with the community, and the reason for respondents’ lack of community involvement, were structured such that they were not appropriate for inclusion in the scale. These two indicators were examined in conjunction with the scale rather than part of the scale. |
![]() |
|||||||||
©2002-2015 Philadelphia Health Management Corporation | Contact Web design & development by MostlyWeb, Inc. |
||||||||||
|
![]() |
|