Collective Efficacy, Community Context, and Youth Wellbeing

Background: Collective efficacy is the process by which social cohesion is activated as informal social control in communities. Prior research suggests social cohesion has a positive impact on youth whereas the impact neighborhood informal social control is limited. Collective efficacy research is limited because it focuses almost exclusively on collective efficacy at the neighborhood level.

Youth belong to multiple communities including family and school. Drawing upon collective efficacy in multiple community contexts can maximize the impact of interventions. For example, informal social control in the family and school may have a stronger, positive impact on youth relative to neighborhood informal social control because teachers and parents have a closer relationship with youth.

The present study tests collective efficacy in the neighborhood, family, and school as predictors of youth wellbeing. We hypothesize that social cohesion in the neighborhood, home, and school will be positively associated with wellbeing. We also expect informal social control in the family and school to be associated with wellbeing, but neighborhood informal social control will not be associated with youth wellbeing.

Method: Data for this study were drawn from the Future of Families and Child Wellbeing study (n = 3,444). Roughly half the youth were male (51.3%), Black (49.1%) and were 16-19 years old (45.7%).

Child wellbeing was measured using the EPOCH Measure of Adolescent Wellbeing (α = 0.794). Neighborhood social cohesion (α = 0.714) and informal social control (α = 0.842) were measured using the ten collective efficacy items developed by Sampson and colleagues. Family social cohesion was measured by combining three items that reflect how connected parents are to youths’ broader social networks (α = 0.733). Family informal social control was measured using a three item parental monitoring scale (α = 0.746). School social cohesion was measured using four items reflecting school connectedness (α = 0.729), and school informal social control was measured using four items that reflects teachers’ ability to care for and control students (α = 0.721).

Using Mplus, Ordinary Least Squares regression was performed to examine social cohesion and information social control at the neighborhood, family, and school levels as predictors of youth wellbeing.

Results:

Neighborhood social cohesion had a positive association with wellbeing (β = 0.301, SE = 0.041). Neighborhood informal social control was not significantly associated with wellbeing (p > 0.05).

Family social cohesion (β = 0.141; SE = 0.023) and informal social control had positive associations with wellbeing (β = 0.390; SE = 0.071).

School social cohesion (β = 0.763; SE = 0.052) and informal social control had a positive association with wellbeing (β = 0.416; SE = 0.057) as well.

Conclusions: The findings highlight the importance of building social cohesion across community contexts. The positive impact of family and school informal social control suggest that interventions should focus on engaging adults with caring and supportive relationships with youth in the process of watching out for youth. Building collective efficacy across community contexts can potentially support youth more than building collective efficacy in any of these contexts alone.