{"id":23,"date":"2025-09-22T23:37:33","date_gmt":"2025-09-22T23:37:33","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/social-connection.local\/thirdspaces\/?page_id=23"},"modified":"2025-10-26T14:58:25","modified_gmt":"2025-10-26T14:58:25","slug":"measurement","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/www.social-connection.org\/socialcapital\/measurement\/","title":{"rendered":"Measurement"},"content":{"rendered":"
<\/span>
\n
\n

Measurement<\/h1>\n\n\n

Measuring social capital is challenging because it is abstract, relational, and influenced by multiple external factors. <\/p>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div><\/header>\n\n\n\n
\n

A core challenge in assessing and enhancing social capital<\/span>, particularly structural social capital<\/span> developed through local government projects, is a lack of consensus on rigorous measures. Social capital is essential for upward mobility, but there is a significant gap in understanding how to measure the impact of community investments that seek to increase social capital and improve economic mobility<\/span> outcomes. Without data, making the case for investment is more difficult.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Measuring social capital is challenging because it is abstract, relational, and influenced by multiple external factors. Trust, belonging<\/span>, civic participation, and network strength are difficult to quantify directly, and self-reported surveys can be subjective.(38 39)<\/sup> Researchers often rely on proxies such as participation in community organizations, attendance at events, library or recreation center usage, and neighborhood indicators like safety or business activity.(40)<\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n

F4SC’s Action Guide for Building Socially Connected Communities<\/em><\/a> includes a dashboard with county-level data for such measures, including individual perceptions of social isolation, community social engagement, and access to third places. Network analysis and composite indices combining surveys, behavioral data, and administrative records can provide a more complete picture, allowing for longitudinal tracking of how investments in third places affect social capital and connectedness over time. While these are promising approaches, many communities do not have resources to direct to these efforts. This becomes particularly challenging in the face of many overlapping domains of social capital and corresponding survey items. One way to frame social capital is in terms of its benefits: bonding, bridging<\/span>, and linking. Another considers different dimensions of the concept: structural, relational, and cognitive. The lack of a single set of domains and best measures for each makes it difficult for communities to decide how to most effectively allocate any resources they may have for measurement.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

While data on social capital is increasingly available at the ZIP code level,<\/a>(41)<\/sup> comparable neighborhood-level data on social capital and connectedness is largely lacking. The essential interaction between social connection and economic mobility is how often individuals interact across race and class, which can guide thinking about the outcomes that can be seeded by social capital interventions. Measures of trust, civic participation, network diversity, and interactions in social or civic spaces are not routinely collected at fine geographic scales, making it difficult to evaluate how local investments in third places influence community cohesion. Without neighborhood-level quantitative indicators, policymakers and researchers must rely on surveys, proxies, or local studies to estimate changes in social connectedness<\/span> and its link to economic opportunity.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

With input from our working group and feedback from our communities, we developed survey instruments that could be used to collect primary data in neighborhoods and third places to evaluate the effectiveness of investments in social infrastructure<\/span> and inform future decisions. Below are suggested questions for these surveys. The first can be used to track resident feelings, attitudes, and behaviors at the neighborhood level. The second can be used to assess programs and services offered in third places. It offers a section for staff and another for visitors to evaluate a space and its programs. Demographic questions about race, ethnicity, and income level can be included to collect data that can be disaggregated.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The surveys are designed using a 5-point Likert scale, except where otherwise indicated: 
Strongly agree \/ Somewhat agree \/ Neither agree not disagree \/ Somewhat disagree \/ Strongly disagree<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

VIEW THE DASHBOARD →<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Survey Questions<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n

Neighborhood Survey<\/h3>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

Define “neighborhood” or “community” in survey directions.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

I have at least one neighbor I can trust with the keys to my house. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

This a close-knit neighborhood. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Of all the individuals you had contact with in the past month, how many have a similar level of household income as you?<\/p>\n\n\n\n