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.

• High social capital increases with age. Young adults ages 18-29 years of age are less likely to have high social capital (9.6%) than adults ages 30-44 (23.2%), 45-59 (24.7%), and those 60 and older (22.1%).
• White adults (23.9%) are nearly twice as likely as black adults (13.4%) and three times as likely as Asian adults (7.8%) to have high social capital.
• Non-Latinos are nearly three times as likely as Latinos to have high social capital (21.4% and 7.9%, respectively).
• Social capital does not vary greatly by gender among adults in the region; among men 20% have high social capital compared to 21.6% of women.
• Non-poor adults in SEPA are more than twice as likely as poor adults to have high social capital (22.8% versus 8.8%, respectively).

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).

• Social capital varies among Planning Analysis sections of Philadelphia. Greater than one out of five adults in Germantown/Chestnut Hill (22.1%) have high social capital, followed by Center City (19.5%), Lower North Philadelphia (18.6%), and the Upper Northeast (17.3%). Upper North Philadelphia (5.4%) has the lowest percentage of adults who have high social capital.
• Adults in Upper Bucks County are more likely to have high social capital (31.1%) compared to Central (25.5%) and Lower (22.5%) Bucks County.
• Eastern Chester County has the highest percentage of adults with high social capital (29.4%) followed by Downington/West Chester (28.3%) area while Northern/Upper Brandywine/Coatsville area has the lowest (25.8%).
• Northern Delaware County has the highest percentage of adults with high social capital (31.0%) and Aston/Chester area has the lowest (18.1%).
• In Montgomery County, the Lower Merion area has the highest percentage of adults with high social capital (32.2%) followed by North Penn (27.2%). The Pottstown area has the lowest (14.9%).

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.

• Philadelphia adults 18 years of age and older are the more likely to report that their neighbors have worked together on a project or towards a common goal compared to the surrounding suburban counties. Approximately, seven out of ten (70.5%) adults in Philadelphia have worked on a community project compared to 56.1% in Bucks, 57.0% in Chester, 55.8% in Delaware, and 51.9% in Montgomery County.
• Adults residing in the four suburban counties surrounding Philadelphia are more likely to trust their neighbors compared to adults in Philadelphia. Nearly six out of ten adults in Philadelphia (68.5%) trust their neighbors compared to an average of 89.3% in the suburbs.
• While the majority of adults in SEPA feel they belong in their community, Philadelphia adults are less likely to feel they belong (83.0%) compared to an average of 88.3% in the surrounding suburban communities.
• Philadelphia adults are less likely to participate in at least one civic group compared to adults in the surrounding counties. Approximately four out of ten adults in Philadelphia (44.3% or 484,473) participate in a civic group. Chester County residents are most likely to participate in at least one civic group (56.3% or 179,097 people).
• Philadelphia adults are less likely to believe their neighbors are always willing to help them compared to adults in the surrounding counties; five out of ten adults in Philadelphia believe their neighbors are always willing to help, compared to an average of 62.2% in the surrounding suburban counties. Residents of Chester County are most likely to believe their neighbors are always willing to help (64.5% or 196,323 adults).

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.