Building Community Capacity to Prevent Violence: Findings from a Pilot Project to Facilitate Collective Efficacy among Residents

Purpose: Research demonstrates that collective efficacy, including social cohesion/trust and the willingness of neighbors to intervene in neighborhood problems and inappropriate behaviors, is associated with lower levels of community crime and violence (Morenoff, Sampson, & Raudenbush, 2001; Sampson, Raudenbush, & Earls, 1997). However, few social work interventions address these issues. This paper presents findings from a pilot training project designed to build a community's capacity to prevent violence by facilitating collective efficacy and informal social control among residents.

Methods: The program included: teaching residents skills to directly intervene in inappropriate neighborhood behaviors in a respectful and supportive manner, using the principles of restorative justice; teaching residents consensus organizing strategies for building trusting relationships with other residents and external stakeholders, thus enhancing social cohesion/capital; and helping residents identify and establish community norms supporting pro social behavior and mutual trust. The program took place in a low-income neighborhood and consisted of six, ninety-minute sessions involving a combination of lecture, discussion, role plays and homework. Sixteen participants were recruited who were active in their community and/or were interested in gaining skills in community violence prevention. Data were collected using quantitative and qualitative methods, including a pre- and post training survey. Participants' average length of neighborhood residency was 6.5 years; most were African American (93%) and female (69%). Half completed high school/GED, 38% some college, and 12% a college and/or graduate degree. Only 25% were employed full-time, and the rest were retired or disabled (19%), and unemployed or full-time students (13%). Most participants also had low-incomes (65% earned less than $20,000/year). The survey asked participants about their attitudes toward intervening (@=.81), likelihood of and confidence in intervening in a variety of hypothetical situations, and what they were most likely to do when they intervened. Results were analyzed quantitatively using paired samples t-tests, and qualitatively according to themes.

Results: One way significance tests were conducted, as it was hypothesized that the training would improve participants' attitudes towards intervening and increase participants' likelihood of intervening and confidence in intervening. The t-test (N=15) demonstrated that the mean scores regarding participants' attitudes about intervening (p<.05) and their likelihood to intervene (p<.05) increased significantly from pre- to post-test; however, their mean scores regarding their confidence in intervening did not increase significantly (p=.29; p=.17). Participants who stated that they were “very likely” or “likely” to intervene in two of the hypothetical situations (a couple fighting, a neighbor having loud parties) were asked what they were most likely to do when they intervened. The results demonstrated that over half to most participants stated they would use only indirect intervention strategies (e.g., calling the police or 911) prior to the training; while afterwards most would use direct intervention (e.g., non-threatening strategies such as talking to the individuals) or a combination of direct and indirect intervention strategies.

Implications: The results of this study contribute to community intervention research, and demonstrate the importance of facilitating collective efficacy and informal social control among residents as a strategy for building community capacity to prevent violence.