A Latent Profile Analysis of Cohesion in the Neighborhood, Family, and School: Evidence for Community Cohesion and Economic Justice

Background: The present study uses latent profile analysis (LPA) to study cohesion across three community contexts: neighborhood family and school. Cohesion refers to feelings of trust, mutual support, belonging, and quality relationships. A broad body of research suggests that cohesion is associated with positive youth outcomes.

A key limitation in previous research is that researchers typically focus on cohesion in one community context such as neighborhood, family, or school. Further, researchers treat measures of cohesion of the family, neighborhood, and school as though they are independent of each other. However, there may be unobserved subgroups based on cohesion and community context. Increasing our understanding of how cohesion operates within and between community contexts can help practitioners build cohesion in the most salient context(s) in youths’ lives.

Method: Data for this study are drawn from the sixth wave of the Future of Families and Child Wellbeing Study. Neighborhood cohesion (α = 0.714) was measured using the five neighborhood social items developed by Sampson and colleagues. Family cohesion was measured by combining three items that reflect how connected parents are to youths’ broader social networks (α = 0.733). School cohesion was measured using four items reflecting school connectedness (α = 0.729).

Results: Missing data was accounted for using multiple imputation, resulting in a sample of 3,444 individuals. 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%).

Findings from the LPA supports a three profile solution. Profile one (n = 206, 5.9%) is labeled “neighborhood cohesion,” and is comprised of individuals who report higher levels of neighborhood social cohesion and lower levels of school and family cohesion. Profile two (n = 2,468, 71.6%) is labeled “high cohesion” because respondents reported high levels of cohesion in all community contexts. Profile three (n =770, 22.4%) is “neighborhood and school” because respondents reported comparable levels of neighborhood and school cohesion but lower levels of family cohesion compared to the “high cohesion” group.

In terms of predictors of class membership; household incomes between 100-199% and 200-299% of the federal poverty level were the strongest predictors of belonging to the “neighborhood cohesion” and the “neighborhood and school” profiles. Older boys with a primary caregiver who completed college were also more likely to belong to the neighborhood cohesion profile.

Conclusions: The findings suggest that there are three profiles of cohesion. This finding demonstrates that cohesion is a complex phenomenon that should be understood within and between community contexts as building cohesion across contexts may have a stronger impact than building cohesion in any one context alone.

Interestingly, household income was the strongest predictor of profile membership. Interventions based on cohesion build connections in youths’ communities. Our findings suggest that economic empowerment may help build cohesive communities, ensuring that individuals are getting ahead as opposed to getting by. Further, creating linkages between cohesion and economics underscore the need for economic justice and social intervention.