Overall 2009

Soul of the Community
September 2009
Knight Communities Overall

Copyright Standards Knight Communities Overall
This document contains proprietary research, copyrighted materials, and literary property of Gallup, Inc. It is for the
guidance of your company only and is not to be copied, quoted, published, or divulged to others outside of your
organization. Gallup®, Q12®, The Gallup Path®, The Gallup Poll®, CE11®, SF34®, Business Impact Analysis™, SRI® and
Gallup Consulting® are trademarks of Gallup, Inc. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners.
This document is of great value to both your organization and Gallup, Inc. Accordingly, international and domestic
laws and penalties guaranteeing patent, copyright, trademark, and trade secret protection protect the ideas,
concepts, and recommendations related within this document.
No changes may be made to this document without the express written permission of Gallup, Inc.
2 Copyright © 2009 Gallup, Inc. All rights reserved.

Agenda Knight Communities Overall
 Community Attachment Overview

 Overall Measures of Biggest Problem and Life Evaluation
 The Drivers of Community Attachment
 Ratings on Domains of Community Attachment
 Domain Ratings by Comparison Groups
 Recommendations on Focus Areas and Groups
 CA by Demographic Groups
 Appendix (Survey Items, Community Lists, Key Terms)
Note: Speaking and discussion points are included in the notes section of many slides

Why Community Attachment? Knight Communities Overall
 The Soul of the Community project is a three-year study by Gallup funded by

Knight Foundation that explores what community qualities influence residents’
loyalty and passion for where they live and how those feelings relate to
indicators of community well-being such as local economic growth and vitality in
26 U.S. communities.
 By pinpointing what drives residents’ loyalty and passion for where they live,
this study helps local leaders influence residents’ feelings about their
community — and potentially its well-being.
 This project does not serve as a replacement for national economic policy, but
it does make the case that residents’ attachment to where they live matters to
community vitality. As the country emerges from the economic crisis, this
project highlights what draws residents to their communities and that this
emotional connection may help local economic growth.

Methodology Knight Communities Overall
 U.S. Census geography — Core-Based-Statistical Areas

– Larger communities were generally Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs) or Metropolitan
Districts (MDs); smaller areas were Micropolitan Statistical Areas (µSAs)
– Long Beach, CA was defined by ZIP codes as the City of Long Beach
 Random Digit Dialing (RDD) sample of households in each of the 26 Knight Foundation
Communities
 Telephone interview with about 400 randomly identified adults aged 18+
– Oversample of 1,500 interviews in Detroit, Charlotte, and Akron
 Interviewing dates February 17 through April 25, 2009
 About 400 completed interviews per community
 Data were weighted in each community to reflect the adult population by age, gender,
race, and ethnicity. Communities were put into their correct proportion based on total U.S.
adult population.
 Due to variances in the question scales, most data were rescaled to a 3-point scale for
comparability (low, medium, high). A description of the specific items and the rescaled
values can be found in the Appendix.

Community Attachment Knight Communities Overall
Community Attachment is an individual’s psychological connection with the community. It

goes beyond their satisfaction with the community and extends to the passion and pride
they take in living there.
Attitudinal
CA = Loyalty + Passion
Attitudinal +
Community = Loyalty
Passion
Attachment
Community Attachment (CA) is comprised of two constructs: Attitudinal Loyalty to the

community and their Passion for it. Each has equal weight in overall attachment. The CA
metric is a mean score ranging from 1.00 to 5.00.

Attachment Matters to Knight
Communities
CA links to key economic outcomes of communities, such that communities with higher CA also are higher on these outcomes. There are strong positive correlations to GDP and recent
measures of high school dropout rates, with weaker correlations to population growth.
CA Correlation to GDP Growth=.431; CA Correlation to Annual HS Dropout Rate=-.359

CA Correlation to Population Growth=.171
*Event HS dropout rate - percent of students who left high school between the beginning of one school
year and the beginning of the next without earning a high school diploma or its equivalent (e.g., a GED).
Community Attachment Groups Knight Communities Overall
Community Attachment is similar to 2008.

CA Mean: 3.56 3.58
Highly loyal and connected

Attached to the community
(CA Mean 4.50+)
Lack full loyalty and

passion but see some
Neutral positive aspects of
community
(CA Mean 3.50-4.49)
Unhappy with the

community, its services and
Not Attached offerings, and likely to leave
if they can
(CA Mean <3.50)

Community Attachment by Knight
Community Knight Communities Overall
Huge range in Community Attachment, both within and across Knight Groups —
Bradenton is the most attached Knight community; Gary is the least attached.
CA Mean: ↑ ↑ ↓ ↑ ↓
2009 3.52 3.62 3.11 3.82 3.78 3.89 3.78 3.50 3.91 3.87 4.00 3.69 4.03 3.79 3.87 3.22 3.64 3.58
3.74 3.73 3.85 4.04 3.92 3.72 3.87 3.77 3.73 3.84 3.96 3.90 3.65 3.80 3.89 3.89 3.49 3.60 3.56
3.89 3.42 2.80 3.84
2008 3.54 3.46 3.02 3.82
3.74 3.78 3.88 3.79 3.91
3.84 3.40 2.90 3.80
Very Large Pop. — Large Pop. — Medium Pop. — Medium Pop. — Low/Medium Pop. —
Very High Urban Very High Urban Very High Urban High Urban Low/Medium Urban
↑↓Indicate statistical difference from previous year at 95% level of confidence

Community Attachment by Knight
Groups Knight Communities Overall
There is range in CA across the urbanicity/population groups. The largest urban areas
remain least attached but improved since 2008, while the slightly smaller, but highly urban
areas (San Jose, St. Paul, etc.) remain the most attached.
CA Mean:
↑
3.31 3.37 3.81 3.80 3.51 3.53 3.78 3.74 3.77 3.73
3.56 3.58
Very Large Pop. — Large Pop. — Medium Pop. — Medium Pop. — Low/Medium Pop. Knight
Very High Urban Very High Urban Very High Urban High Urban — Low/Medium Communities
Urban Overall

Most Important Problem
Facing Community
Economy-related concerns (36%) eclipse crime related concerns in 2009.
Citizen Perception of Most Important Problem Facing Their Community Today

Three Responses Allowed
Note: Only most frequently mentioned categories shown. May total to more than 100% due
to multiple responses.

Knight Communities
Life Evaluation
Citizens in Knight Communities generally have similar perceptions of overall life
evaluation as U.S. adults overall during the survey period. The national LEI was about
50% thriving during the same period in 2008.
*Gallup-Healthways Well-Being Index February 17-April 25, 2009

Some Groups Thrive More Knight Communities Overall
Younger, Students, Higher Education, Higher Income, More Thriving
Age Gender Employment Education Marital Income

Status

Positive Future Outlook Is
Related to Attachment
Citizens who feel their community will be a much better place to live in 5 years are much
more likely to be attached, as well as for key early- to mid-career segment of adults.
% Attached
Perception of What Community Will Be Like to Live
in 5 Years From Now
Vocalize/promote future efforts and goals. Host seminars on area vision. Involve
citizens to plan, drive, and share visions.
14
Copyright © 2009 Gallup, Inc. All rights reserved.
Community Attachment Model Knight Communities Overall
CA Domains
(Outcome) (Levers)
OUTLOOK EMOTIONAL
OPENNESS WELLNESS
PRIDE
SOCIAL CIVIC
SATISFACTION CAPITAL INVOLVEMENT
PERFECT
COMMUNITY OFFERINGS
RECOMMEND PLACE
Basic Services  Leadership  Education
 Safety  Social Offerings 
Aesthetics  Economy
(Attitudinal Loyalty) (Passion)
The goal is increased Community Attachment. The Domains are the levers to move to
improve CA. Drive down higher-level Domain constructs to specific outcomes.

Summary Knight Communities Overall
 Community Attachment (CA) links to community GDP and high

school dropout rates and matters to community prosperity.
– Linkages were confirmed and enhanced from 2008.
– Each community has different strengths that can be promoted and
weaknesses that can be addressed.
– There is a wide range of sentiments across communities and the
CA range is widening.
 There are specific, tactical actions that can be taken to address
CA opportunities.
– Attachment is not all about economy and jobs; there are other
things that can be done to drive attachment to place.

Summary — CA Knight Communities Overall
 Overall, 24% of citizens are attached to the Knight

Community in which they live; 40% are not attached.
 Top quartile  Bottom quartile

communities for CA: communities for CA:
– Bradenton, FL - MSA – Gary, IN - MD
– Grand Forks, ND - MSA – Detroit, MI - MSA
– State College, PA - MSA – Macon, GA - MSA
– Long Beach, CA - City – Akron, OH - MSA
– Aberdeen, SD - µSA – Wichita, KS - MSA
– Boulder, CO - MSA – Philadelphia, PA - MD
– Lexington, KY - MSA

Example Key Focus Areas and
Potential Actions
 New residents — not attached/connected
– Make personal connection and ask for their involvement
 Employed adults — the more satisfied at work, the
more attached to the community
– Focus on assisting businesses in driving satisfaction and
attachment with current company
 Students — currently not attached/connected
– Have business and community involve them in meaningful
ways while they are there to retain them
 Optimism — positive outlook for the future is related to
current attachment
– Focus leadership and media on messaging/promotion and
citizen involvement in the future vision

Key Attachment Drivers Knight Communities Overall
The correlations of Domains to CA indicate the relative importance of
each to overall Community Attachment. The domains are listed in Drivers remained consistent year-over-year.
order of strength.
2008 2009
Openness 0.492 0.519
Social Offerings 0.530 0.517
Aesthetics 0.512 0.501
Education 0.466 0.436
Basic Services 0.412 0.398 Community Attachment
Leadership 0.408 0.388
Economy 0.408 0.338
Emotional Wellness 0.322 0.292
Safety 0.216 0.189

Social Capital 0.136 0.155
Civic Involvement 0.058 0.037

Correlations to Overall CA Among College Graduates 18-44 Years of Age (n=1,181)
2008 2009
0.412 0.362
Leadership Community Attachment
Economy 0.402 0.335
Basic Services 0.344 0.294
Safety 0.230 0.244
0.058 0.061
Civic Involvement

Strengths-Weaknesses
Opportunity Map
Community Aesthetics and Education are areas of strength for Knight Communities that
can be leveraged. Openness, Social Offerings, Basic Services, and Leadership offer the
greatest areas for improvement to encourage attachment.
0.60
Critical Opportunity Strength
Social Offerings 2009 Aesthetics 2008 2009
Social Offerings 2008 2008
0.50 Openness 2008
Openness 2009 Aesthetics 2009
Education 2008
Leadership 2008 Economy 2008 Education 2009
(Correlation With Attachment)
0.40 Basic Services 2008

Basic Services 2009
Leadership 2009
Economy 2009
0.30
Emotional Wellness 2009
Importance
Safety 2008
0.20
Safety 2009 Social Capital 2009
Social Capital 2008
0.10
Civic Involvement 2008
Civic Involvement 2009
0.00
1.35 1.45 1.55 1.65 1.75 1.85 1.95 2.05 2.15 2.25
Performance
(Mean Rating)
Correlation: The association or relationship between variables. A positive correlation means that as one increases,
the other increases as well. A 1.0 indicates a perfect correlation.

More Than Just Economy Knight Communities Overall
Avg. Housing Unemployment

Avg. HH
Community Cost (As # Times Rate May ’09 CA Score
Inc.
Avg. Inc.) (BLS)
A 26.7 2.7 10.2%
B 32.9 2.9 9.8%
C 43.7 2.3 10.9%
D 52.7 8.7 6.0%

E 26.1 8.6 5.6%
F 26.6 3.4 9.2%

G 56.1 3.8 10.9%

More Than Just Economy
(continued) Knight Communities Overall

Avg. HH
Inc.
Avg. Inc.) (BLS)
A Gary 26.7 2.7 10.2% 2.80 (-.10)
B Akron 32.9 2.9 9.8% 3.42 (+.02)
C Ft. Wayne 43.7 2.3 10.9% 3.64 (+.04)
D 52.7 8.7 6.0%

E 26.1 8.6 5.6%
F 26.6 3.4 9.2%

G 56.1 3.8 10.9%


Avg. HH
Inc.
Avg. Inc.) (BLS)
A 26.7 2.7 10.2%
B 32.9 2.9 9.8%
C 43.7 2.3 10.9%
D Boulder 52.7 8.7 6.0% 3.89 (+.05)

E State College 26.1 8.6 5.6% 4.00 (+.10)
F 26.6 3.4 9.2%

G 56.1 3.8 10.9%


Avg. HH
Inc.
Avg. Inc.) (BLS)
A 26.7 2.7 10.2%
B 32.9 2.9 9.8%
C 43.7 2.3 10.9%
D 52.7 8.7 6.0%

E 26.1 8.6 5.6%
F Macon 26.6 3.4 9.2% 3.22 (-.27)

G Bradenton 56.1 3.8 10.9% 4.04 (+.25)

Community Attachment Knight Communities Overall
Domains and Sub-Domains of CA
Community Offerings Sub-Domains

Citizens’ connectedness to their communities has improved slightly as the economy has worsened, though
expectedly, views of the local economy have decreased significantly.

Community Offerings Knight Communities Overall
The structural, physical, and social offerings a community presents — without basic services, citizens can’t thrive.
↓
↓
Community Offerings Sub-Domains

Views of local community economy declined significantly, leading to a small overall decline in Community
Offerings.

Community Offerings
Aesthetics
The physical beauty and availability of parks and green spaces for residents
Perceptions of availability of parks, playgrounds, and trails inched up in 2009.


Community Offerings
Basic Services
Infrastructure supports such as highways, housing, and healthcare
↑ ↑
The national housing crisis has led to higher availability of affordable housing in local communities.

Community Offerings
Economy
The local economic and employment conditions
↓ ↓
↓
↓ ↓ ↓
Very few citizens feel local economic conditions are strong or that it is a good time to find a job.

Community Offerings
Education
The quality of K-12 and colleges/universities in the community
Citizens generally rate the quality of colleges and universities better than K-12 public schools.

Community Offerings
Leadership
The leadership and alignment of views of elected officials with citizens
Citizens continue to give low ratings to local community leaders and elected city officials.

Community Offerings
Safety
The local area crime and safety conditions
Citizens perceive the safety around their home higher than that of the broader community.

Community Offerings
Social Offerings
The entertainment infrastructure for people to meet each other, and citizen caring
Slightly more than one in five citizens feel their community is a great place to make friends and meet people;
the community is also viewed as less caring.

Openness Knight Communities Overall
How welcoming the community is to different types of people
↑
↓ ↓
Community Good For…

While citizens perceive Knight Communities to be more welcoming to families with young children, openness
to gays/lesbians and young, talented graduates has declined.

Emotional Wellness Knight Communities Overall
The mixture of mental and physical well-being items. The metric is an overall measure
of personal and community well-being.
Citizens are surprisingly (based on the economic downturn) slightly less stressed on a daily basis than they
were a year ago.

Social Capital Knight Communities Overall
The people-connections citizens have to each other
↑
↑
Citizens spent more time with neighbors this year and are more connected to family.

Civic Involvement Knight Communities Overall
What residents give to the community in terms of civic involvement
Voting behavior increased due to presidential election in Fall 2008.


Q: So What Can Community Leaders Do to
Drive Community Attachment?
A: Focus on Key Sub-Groups
Several Examples of Sub-Groups Where Actions

Could Be Focused

Next to Laid-Off Residents,
Students Are Least Attached
Knight
Communities
Overall

While Educational Opportunities Draw Students —
Communities Need to Focus on Keeping Them Knight Communities Overall
Good schools is a relative strength for most communities, but once they partake of the
educational opportunities, many students plan to leave the state.
Connect students with businesses while in school through internships, community

ties, problem solving, etc.
High Job Satisfaction Plays Role in
Community Attachment
The more satisfied employed adults are with their current company, the more likely they are
to be attached to their community.
Overall Satisfaction With Current Job
Work with business to learn how to better engage employees (e.g., host seminar on
engaging employees, job swapping by local business, etc.).
Communities Have Opportunity to Build
Attachment With Newer Citizens Knight Communities Overall
Lifelong residents are significantly less attached than shorter-term residents, particularly in
the largest urban communities — may feel they didn’t have outside opportunities. But new
residents aren’t yet connected.
Build residents’ attachment when they first move to the area. Leaders should contact
new residents with a personal invitation to get involved.
Early- to Mid-Career Citizens Are Least
Attached to Their Communities
Attachment among college-age adults decreased from 2008, likely due to the economy.
Those in the prime of their working years — those with the most options for jobs — are the
least attached to their communities as well.
Respondent Age
Find opportunities to connect early- to mid-career hires into community through

events, sponsorships, and volunteering.
Profile of Most Attached Citizens Knight Communities Overall
 Citizens Most Likely To Be Attached

– 65 years of age or older
– College graduates
– Widowed, married/partnered residents
– Retired residents
– Homeowners
– Mid-tenure residents (6-19 years in community)
 Citizens Least Likely To Be Attached
– 18-34 years of age
– Single/never married, divorced/separated
– Non-retired/non-employed (includes laid off, students, and homemakers)
– Rural dwellers
– Middle-income residents ($45,000-$74,999 household income)

CA by Citizen Age Knight Communities Overall
Community attachment is highest among older residents

CA by Educational Attainment Knight Communities Overall
Community attachment is slightly higher among college graduates

CA by Marital Status Knight Communities Overall
Widowed residents are generally most attached to the community, while single/never married
and divorced/separated are least attached

CA by Home Ownership Knight Communities Overall
Homeowners are more attached than renters

CA by Years Lived in Community Knight Communities Overall
Mid-term residents are most attached to their community overall. Newer residents in
communities decreased in attachment from 2008

CA by Employment Status Knight Communities Overall
Retired residents are generally more attached to the community, while non-retired/ non-
employed citizens are least attached

CA by Community Area Type Knight Communities Overall
Urban area dwellers within communities increased in attachment, while those living in rural areas
remain least attached

CA by Total Household Income Knight Communities Overall
Higher income residents are generally most attached to the community, although significant
increases occurred among lower income residents
↑ ↑

Domain Comparisons by Urbanicity Groups

Community Offerings Knight Communities Overall
The structural, physical, and social offerings a community presents — without basic services, citizens can’t thrive.
↓ ↓
Citizens in different size communities have similar views of their community’s offerings, though
perceptions have declined for the smallest and least urban communities.

Community Offerings
Aesthetics
The physical beauty and availability of parks and green spaces for residents
The largest urban communities and the medium population/high urban areas have the lowest
perceptions of their community’s aesthetics, though it has increased slightly for the largest urban
communities.

Community Offerings
Basic Services
Infrastructure supports such as highways, housing, and healthcare

Community Offerings
Economy
The local economic and employment conditions
↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓
↓
Perceptions of the local economy decline, echoing national sentiments. Relatively lower decline in largest
urban populated areas putting all community types on near-equal perceived economic footing.

Community Offerings
Education
The quality of K-12 and colleges/universities in the community
Medium population, very high urban areas (including many southern communities such as Tallahassee,
Lexington, and Wichita) have lower perceptions of the quality of their schools.

Community Offerings
Leadership
The leadership and alignment of views of elected officials with citizens

Community Offerings
Safety
The local area crime and safety conditions

Community Offerings
Social Offerings
The entertainment infrastructure for people to meet each other, and citizen caring

Openness Knight Communities Overall
How welcoming the community is to different types of people

Emotional Wellness Knight Communities Overall
The mixture of mental and physical well-being items. The metric is an overall measure of personal
and community well-being.

Social Capital Knight Communities Overall
The people-connections citizens have to each other

Civic Involvement Knight Communities Overall
What residents give to the community in terms of civic involvement — Increased in all
communities due to national election Fall 2008
↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑
↑
Civic involvement, driven by voting during the most recent election, increased in all community types.

Appendix

Question/Reporting Scales Knight Communities Overall
Construct Q Number Question Wording Original Scale Low Medium High

COMMUNITY LOYALTY
Q1 Overall satisfaction with 5-point satisfaction 1-3 4 5
community
Q2 Likely to recommend 5-point likelihood 1-3 4 5
community to others
Q6a Outlook for community 5 5-point much better to
years from now much worse
PASSION
Q3-B Perfect community for 5-point agreement 1-3 4 5
people like me
Q3-A Proud to live in community 5-point agreement 1-3 4 5

(continued)
COMMUNITY OFFERINGS
Basic Services Q7-C Highway and freeway system 5-point very good to very bad 1-3 4 5
Q7-K Availability of quality healthcare 5-point very good to very bad 1-3 4 5
Q7-D Availability of affordable housing 5-point very good to very bad 1-3 4 5
Leadership Q15a-B Community leaders represent my 5-point agreement 1-3 4 5
interests
Q7-L Leadership of elected city officials 5-point very good to very bad 1-3 4 5
Education Q7-F Quality of public schools (K-12) 5-point very good to very bad 1-3 4 5
Q7-G Quality of colleges and universities 5-point very good to very bad 1-3 4 5
Safety Q19 Level of community crime 5-point high to low 1-3 4 5
Q18 Safe to walk within 1 mile of home 5-point completely safe to not 1-3 4 5
at all safe
Aesthetics Q7-A Parks, playgrounds, and trails 5-point very good to very bad 1-3 4 5
Q7-B Beauty or physical setting 5-point very good to very bad 1-3 4 5
Economy Q9 Economic conditions 5-point very good to very bad 1-3 4 5
Q10 Economy getting better/worse 3-point better/same/worse worse same better
Q7-E Availability of job opportunities 5-point very good to very bad 1-3 4 5
Q14 Company hiring momentum 3-point hiring/no change/letting worse same better
go
Q15 Job provides income needed 5-point agreement 1-3 4 5
Q15a-A A good time to find a job in my area 5-point agreement 1-3 4 5
Social Offerings Q7-H Vibrant nightlife 5-point very good to very bad 1-3 4 5
Q7-I Good place to meet people and 5-point very good to very bad 1-3 4 5
make friends
Q7-M Other people care about each other 5-point very good to very bad 1-3 4 5

(continued)
COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT
Q22-A Volunteer 2-point yes/no no yes
Q22-C Voted in local election 2-point yes/no no yes
Q22-B Attend local community meetings 2-point yes/no no yes
Q22-D Work with residents to make 2-point yes/no no yes
change
OPENNESS
Q8-F Good place for senior citizens 5-point very good to very bad 1-3 4 5
Q8-C Good place for racial and ethnic 5-point very good to very bad 1-3 4 5
minorities
Q8-D Good place for families with kids 5-point very good to very bad 1-3 4 5
Q8-E Good place for gays/lesbians 5-point very good to very bad 1-3 4 5
Q8-A Good place for talented college 5-point very good to very bad 1-3 4 5
graduates
Q8-B Good place for immigrants from 5-point very good to very bad 1-3 4 5
other countries
SOCIAL CAPITAL
Q23 Belong to formal/informal 8-point 0 to 7+ groups 0 1-2 3+
groups/clubs
Q26 Spend time with neighbors 7-point never to about every Once Several
day year or times
less wk/daily
Q24 Close friends in the community 6-point none to all 1-2 3-5 6+
Q25 Family in area 6-point none to all 1-2 3-5 6+

(continued)
EMOTIONAL WELLNESS
Q16-A In my community I am treated 5-point strongly agree to 1-3 4 5
with respect strongly disagree
Q16-B I felt well-rested yesterday 5-point strongly agree to 1-3 4 5
strongly disagree
Q16-C I felt a high level of stress 5-point strongly agree to 3-5 2 1
yesterday strongly disagree
Q16-D I learned or did something 5-point strongly agree to 1-3 4 5
interesting yesterday strongly disagree

Knight Foundation Communities Knight Communities Overall
 Aberdeen, SD – µSA  Grand Forks, ND – MSA

 Akron, OH* – MSA  Lexington, KY – MSA
 Biloxi, MS – MSA
 City of Long Beach, CA
 Boulder, CO – MSA
 Macon, GA – MSA
 Miami, FL – MD
 Bradenton, FL – MSA
 Milledgeville, GA – µSA
 Charlotte, NC* – MSA  Myrtle Beach, SC – MSA
 Columbia, SC – MSA  Palm Beach, FL – MD
 Columbus, GA – MSA  Philadelphia, PA – MD
 Detroit, MI* – MSA  San Jose, CA – MSA
 Duluth, MN – MSA  St. Paul, MN – MSA
 Fort Wayne, IN – MSA  State College, PA – MSA
 Gary, IN – MD  Tallahassee, FL – MSA
 Wichita, KS – MSA
*Oversampled communities

Knight Foundation Communities Knight Communities Overall
Grand Forks, ND - MSA

Duluth, MN - MSA
Aberdeen, SD - µSA
St. Paul, MN - MSA
Detroit, MI - MSA
Akron, OH - MSA
State College, PA - MSA
Gary, IN - MD
San Jose, CA - MSA Boulder, CO - MSA Fort Wayne, IN - MSA Philadelphia, PA - MD
Lexington, KY - MSA
Wichita, KS - MSA
City of Long Beach, CA Charlotte, NC - MSA

Columbia, SC - MSA Myrtle Beach, SC - MSA
Milledgeville, GA - µSA
Columbus, GA - MSA Macon, GA - MSA
Biloxi, MS - MSA Tallahassee, FL - MSA

LEGEND
Very High Urban – Very Large Population
Very High Urban – Large Population
Very High Urban – Medium Population Bradenton, FL - MSA Palm Beach, FL - MD
High Urban – Medium Population
Medium/Low Urban – Medium/Low Population
Miami, FL - MD

Knight Community Comparison
Groups
 5 comparison groups were created among the 26 Knight Foundation
communities based on their urbanicity (as defined by the U.S. Census)
and relative adult population size.
 Goal of creating groups is for comparisons of cities within groups
(rather than across group comparisons).
Very Large Population
1 Detroit, MI – MSA; Philadelphia, PA – MD; Miami, FL – MD
— Very High Urban
2 Large Population — St. Paul, MN – MSA; San Jose, CA – MSA; Palm Beach, FL – MD;
Very High Urban Charlotte, NC – MSA
3 Medium Population — Bradenton, FL – MSA; Akron, OH – MSA; Gary, IN – MD;
Very High Urban City of Long Beach; Boulder, CO – MSA
4 Medium Population — Columbia, SC – MSA; Wichita, KS – MSA; Lexington, KY – MSA;
High Urban Tallahassee, FL – MSA; Columbus, GA – MSA
Fort Wayne, IN – MSA; Duluth, MN – MSA; Macon, GA – MSA;
5 Medium/Low Population Biloxi, MS – MSA; Grand Forks, ND – MSA;
— Medium/Low Urban Myrtle Beach, SC – MSA; State College, PA – MSA;
Milledgeville, GA – µSA; Aberdeen, SD – µSA

Key Terms Knight Communities Overall
Community Attachment (CA) – Residents’ psychological connection with the community, specifically
defined as their loyalty and passion for the place.
Attitudinal Loyalty – The overall contentment of citizens with their community, their outlook for the
community’s future, and likelihood to recommend the community to others.
Passion – The pride and enthusiasm citizens have toward their community, and their place in it.
Domains – Perception of community qualities that drive overall CA and can be impacted locally.
Social Capital – the people-connections citizens have to each other.
Openness – how welcoming the community is to different types of people.
Civic Involvement – what residents give to the community in terms of civic involvement.
Emotional Wellness – the mixture of mental and physical well-being items. The metric is an
overall measure of personal and community well-being.
Basic Services – infrastructure supports such as highways, housing, and healthcare.
Economy – local economic and employment conditions.
Safety – local area crime and safety conditions.
Leadership – rating of leadership and belief that elected officials represent resident’s interest.
Education – quality of K-12 and colleges/universities in the community.
Aesthetics – physical beauty and availability of parks and green spaces for residents.
Social Offerings – entertainment infrastructure for people to meet each other, and citizen
caring.

Attitudinal Loyalty Knight Communities Overall
Attitudinal Loyalty measures the overall contentment of citizens with their community, their
outlook for the community’s future, and likelihood to recommend the community to others.

Passion Knight Communities Overall
Passion describes the pride and enthusiasm citizens have toward their community, and their
place in it.

Community Domains Knight Communities Overall
Gallup identified five key Domains and seven Sub-Domains related to Community Attachment. These
domains identify aspects of the community which drive attachment and can be impacted through local-
level initiatives by community leaders and businesses.
Community Offerings — the basic factors without

which citizens cannot thrive.
Emotional Wellness — the personal well-being of

individuals.
Social Capital — the people-connections citizens

have to each other.
Openness — how welcoming the community is to

different types of people.
Civic Involvement — what the residents give to the

community in terms of civic involvement.

Correlations to Overall CA Among Students; Openness is key for students (n=283)
2008 2009
Openness
0.495 0.589
Economy 0.567 0.317
Safety 0.415 0.223


Correlations to Attached Citizens — Residents Aged 25-44
Social Offerings and Openness most influence those aged 25-44 (n=3,077)
2008 2009

Economy 0.451 0.360
Safety 0.251 0.191


Overall 2009

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Overall 2009

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Soul of the Community

Knight Communities Overall

2 Copyright © 2009 Gallup, Inc. All rights reserved.

 Community Attachment Overview

3 Copyright © 2009 Gallup, Inc. All rights reserved.

 The Soul of the Community project is a three-year study by Gallup funded by

4 Copyright © 2009 Gallup, Inc. All rights reserved.

 U.S. Census geography — Core-Based-Statistical Areas

5 Copyright © 2009 Gallup, Inc. All rights reserved.

Community Attachment is an individual’s psychological connection with the community. It

Community Attachment (CA) is comprised of two constructs: Attitudinal Loyalty to the

6 Copyright © 2009 Gallup, Inc. All rights reserved.

CA Correlation to GDP Growth=.431; CA Correlation to Annual HS Dropout Rate=-.359

Community Attachment is similar to 2008.

Highly loyal and connected

Lack full loyalty and

Unhappy with the

8 Copyright © 2009 Gallup, Inc. All rights reserved.

9 Copyright © 2009 Gallup, Inc. All rights reserved.

↑↓Indicate statistical difference from previous year at 95% level of confidence

10 Copyright © 2009 Gallup, Inc. All rights reserved.

Citizen Perception of Most Important Problem Facing Their Community Today

11 Copyright © 2009 Gallup, Inc. All rights reserved.

*Gallup-Healthways Well-Being Index February 17-April 25, 2009

12 Copyright © 2009 Gallup, Inc. All rights reserved.

Younger, Students, Higher Education, Higher Income, More Thriving

Age Gender Employment Education Marital Income

13 Copyright © 2009 Gallup, Inc. All rights reserved.

15 Copyright © 2009 Gallup, Inc. All rights reserved.

 Community Attachment (CA) links to community GDP and high

16 Copyright © 2009 Gallup, Inc. All rights reserved.

 Overall, 24% of citizens are attached to the Knight

 Top quartile  Bottom quartile

17 Copyright © 2009 Gallup, Inc. All rights reserved.

18 Copyright © 2009 Gallup, Inc. All rights reserved.

Safety 0.216 0.189

Civic Involvement 0.058 0.037

19 Copyright © 2009 Gallup, Inc. All rights reserved.

Correlations to Overall CA Among College Graduates 18-44 Years of Age (n=1,181)

Openness 0.534 0.520

Aesthetics 0.485 0.513

Education 0.420 0.437

Basic Services 0.344 0.294

Emotional Wellness 0.281 0.266

Safety 0.230 0.244

Social Capital 0.136 0.150

20 Copyright © 2009 Gallup, Inc. All rights reserved.

0.40 Basic Services 2008

21 Copyright © 2009 Gallup, Inc. All rights reserved.

Avg. Housing Unemployment

D 52.7 8.7 6.0%

F 26.6 3.4 9.2%

22 Copyright © 2009 Gallup, Inc. All rights reserved.

Avg. Housing Unemployment

D 52.7 8.7 6.0%

F 26.6 3.4 9.2%

23 Copyright © 2009 Gallup, Inc. All rights reserved.

Avg. Housing Unemployment

D Boulder 52.7 8.7 6.0% 3.89 (+.05)

F 26.6 3.4 9.2%

24 Copyright © 2009 Gallup, Inc. All rights reserved.

Avg. Housing Unemployment

D 52.7 8.7 6.0%