1. Trends in Greensboro’s Social Capital: Preliminary Findings from the 2006 National Social Capital Community Benchmark Survey Community Foundation of Greater Greensboro Community Dialogue March 15, 2007

2. Social Capital: What is it? Social Capital is the “glue” that holds the fabric of our society together in regards to:  Civic Connectedness  Social & Political Involvement  Trust & Reciprocity

3. Social Capital: Why is it important?  As research indicates, communities with higher levels of social capital typically work better…  Citizens are healthier, economic development is strong, communities are safer, and kids perform better in school…  In the new economy, communities that figure out how to effectively leverage their collective strengths, are those communities that will thrive in the 21 st century world…

4. In other words… Just like you need investment capital to prosper and human capital to grow, you need strong social capital to make necessary and lasting change in a community. If social capital is fragmented so is action.

5. Social Capital in Guilford County in 2000: Top-Line Findings from the 1 st Survey Higher Scores than in Comparable Communities: Faith-based engagement VolunteeringGiving Lower Scores than in Comparable Communities: Informal Socializing Trust Inter-racial trust Trust in persons outside one’s social circle Protest Politics

6. 2006 Greensboro Survey  Developed by Harvard University Professor, Robert Putnam (Bowling Alone)  Scientific telephone poll that included 450 residents from Greensboro as a representative sample, 2,741 people for the national sample and 21 communities participating across the country  2006 data are compared against Greensboro sub-sample of the 2000 survey (n=546 out of 750) with data are weighted to reflect demographics of Greensboro’s population (gender, age, race, ethnicity, education)  Thanks to our funding partners:  Joseph M. Bryan Foundation;  Cemala Foundation;  Community Foundation of Greater Greensboro;  News and Record;  Tanenbaum-Sternberger Foundation; and  Weaver Foundation

7. Top Line Results 1.Monetary Giving 2.Volunteerism and Engagement in Community Organizations 3.Bridging Social Capital 4.Social Trust 5.Connecting with Public Institutions 6.Leadership in Organizations

8. Monetary Giving  Despite a difficult economic climate, giving trends remain positive  Greensboro residents give more than national averages  As expected, giving to religious organizations exceeds giving to non-religious organizations  Are more people giving or are the same people giving more?

9. Economic Characteristics* Source: http://factfinder.census.gov

10. Economic Characteristics* Source: http://factfinder.census.gov

11. Monetary Giving

12. A. Monetary Giving

13. Volunteerism and Engagement  Greensboro residents are highly engaged in organizations and activities that advance the well-being of the community  Volunteerism has increased substantially over the past 6 years  While people are more engaged, it is increasingly through informal channels  One traditional measure of leadership, that is serving as “an officer of an organization,” is declining  Increased participation with faith-based organizations mirrors similar trends in other Southern communities

14. Volunteerism and Engagement

21. Q31. How often you attend religious services? GSO 2000 (n = 546) GSO 2006 (n = 450) National 2000 (n=28874) National 2006 (n=2741) Every week (or more often) 37.1%43.9%33.2%34.5% Almost every week 11.5%11.3%7.9%6.7% Once or twice a month 18.6%15.3%16.9%14.9% A few times per year 12.2%6.8%16.2%16.9% Less often than that 8.2%11.4%12.0%12.2% NA (no religion)11.3%11.1%13.5%14.5% Don’t know0.8%0.2%-0.4% Refused---0.2%

22. Volunteerism and Engagement

23. Bridging Social Capital: Social Interaction  Increased socializing in public places … while socializing at home declined … while socializing at home declined  Increased socializing across race  More inter-racial friendships, especially involving Latinos

24. Bridging Social Capital

33. Social Trust  Decline in % who think that “most people can be trusted”  parallel to national decline  GSO remains lower than national levels  But the overall trend is driven by whites  Opposite trends for blacks vs. whites  Picture is similar for “trust people in your neighborhood”  Slight improvement in inter-racial trust  Improvement among whites parallels national trends  Increase trust among blacks of whites and of Latinos exceeds national findings

34. SOCIAL TRUST

37. Q7A. How much you can trust people in your neighborhood Greensboro 2000 (n = 546) Greensboro 2006 (n = 450) National 2000 (n = 28452) National 2006 (n=2741) Trust them a lot43.5%38.8%47.3%45.1% Trust them some36.6%39.4%34.8%34.2% Trust them only a little12.0%15.0%12.3%13.3% Trust them not at all5.0% 5.6% Among Whites: Greensboro 2000 (n = 346) Greensboro 2006 (n = 245) National 2000 (n = 20097) National 2006 (n=1901) Trust them a lot54.1%52.2%56.2%54.0% Trust them some34.9%32.2%32.9%33.2% Trust them only a little6.6%11.8%7.7%8.3% Trust them not at all1.9%2.9%3.3%2.8% Among African Americans: Greensboro 2000 (n = 149) Greensboro 2006 (n = 154) National 2000 (n=3418) National 2006 (n=261) Trust them a lot18.8%24.0%21.0%24.2% Trust them some44.1%48.7%43.4%38.7% Trust them only a little22.4%22.1%23.2%22.9% Trust them not at all10.3%5.8%12.5%11.7% Q7A. How much you can trust people in your neighborhood?

38. Connecting with Public Institutions  Interest and involvement in public affairs is at national averages  High levels of voting  Slight decrease in direct involvement with the political process  Increased participation in groups that took social/political action  Decreased levels of trust in local government and police

39. Connecting with Public Institutions

46. 25 – How much of the time can you trust local government to do what is right? Na tio nal Gre ens bor o Wi ns to n- Sa le m Du lut h- Su pe rio r Kala maz oo Ka ns as Le wis ton- Au bur n ME New Ham pshi re Roc hes ter NY Sa ra so ta FL 1 Just about always 6355898666 2 Most of the time 3634384845 40454239 3 Some of the time 45514439373640434241 4 Hardly ever 1112 81091151012 8 Don't know 21100.110.71.111 9 Ref use d 00.10.200.3 1 3,4 Hardly ever or Some of the time 56635647 455248.05253

47. Connecting with Public Institutions

48. Leadership in Organizations  Generally, Greensboro is above average in leadership as measured through officer or committee positions in organizations  However, Greensboro residents levels of volunteerism ranks at the top nationally  Are residents finding other, less formal ways to contribute to the community?  What are the other ways to gauge leadership in a community?

49. Leadership in Organizations (within past year) *

52. 20002006

53. Leadership in Organizations (within past year) * 20002006

54. Economic Characteristics* *Source: http://factfinder.census.gov

55. Leadership in Organizations (within past year) * 20002006

56. Leadership in Organizations (within past year) * 2000 2006

57. Top Line Results 1.Monetary Giving 2.Volunteerism and Engagement in Community Organizations 3.Bridging Social Capital 4.Social Trust 5.Connecting with Public Institutions 6.Leadership in Organizations

58. “A Split Personality…..” Trust and Engagement: how are they related? Interpersonal Level If we want to increase trust, how can we engage with other people more often to develop relationships? Organizational Level If we want to increase trust among organizations, how do we create partnerships that foster positive civic discourse? Community Level If we want more people to engage in community-wide issues, how do we create a shared vision for our direction? Engagement Trust ?

59. What do these findings say to you?

60. What can you do to build Social Capital? Personally? Organizationally? For your Community?