Social Capital Community Benchmark Survey
Comparison of communities surveyed across dimensions of social capital (expressed in community quotients)

 
Social
Trust
Inter-racial
Trust
Conventional
Politics
Protest
Politics
Civic
Leadership
Associational
Involvement
Informal
Socializing
Diversity of
Friendships
Giving and
Volunteering
Faith-based
Engagement
Social Capital
Equality
Atlanta Metro (GA) 83 91 88 85 89 104 77 108 116 108 112
Baton Rouge (LA) 99 91 106 76 116 102 116 97 121 124 96
Birmingham Metro (AL) 103 89 90 89 112 118 93 86 100 124 102
Bismarck (ND) 131 124 136 91 122 106 122 59 109 120 106
Boston (city of) (MA) 81 99 118 116 83 78 77 121 71 81 97
Boulder County (CO) 108 115 98 121 112 113 104 128 90 76 104
central OR 90 98 95 108 104 107 89 102 76 74 104
Charlotte region/14 counties (NC) 93 78 91 87 97 114 78 102 125 121 97
Chicago Metro (IL) 81 86 89 100 92 93 95 90 85 99 94
Cincinnati Metro (OH) 102 95 81 91 107 112 104 92 108 105 116
Cleveland/Cuyahoga Cty. (OH) 96 91 94 105 108 107 94 81 77 99 107
Delaware 99 105 105 87 104 108 98 101 105 97 95
Denver (city/county) (CO) 99 109 101 120 105 101 98 125 102 88 74
Detroit Metro/7 cty (MI) 90 94 104 114 96 118 121 98 102 103 113
East Tennessee 81 81 91 94 86 89 94 87 107 115 99
Fremont/Newaygo Co. (MI) 97 92 92 106 96 107 113 111 102 100 114
Grand Rapids (city of) 111 108 96 102 99 116 99 100 123 119 103
Greensboro/Guilford County (NC) 96 95 101 86 109 111 87 101 125 118 99
Houston/Harris Cty. (TX) 85 85 81 67 78 68 78 88 87 106 77
Indiana 98 102 90 94 95 100 119 98 97 105 102
Kalamazoo County (MI) 103 99 89 108 98 109 132 111 108 99 109
Kanawha Valley (WV) 85 94 118 109 107 89 96 86 92 102 109
Lewiston-Auburn (ME) 104 131 135 104 92 79 133 89 86 87 114
Los Angeles County (CA) 81 83 86 97 96 97 88 105 103 99 64
Minneapolis (MN) 111 110 109 103 85 103 105 110 103 103 102
Montana 118 120 130 109 114 123 118 101 105 95 130
New Hampshire 102 122 90 104 91 90 98 101 80 74 138
North Minneapolis (MN) 75 94 103 111 104 99 87 111 95 83 79
Peninsula/Silicon Valley (CA) 110 105 99 96 74 62 89 106 79 83 95
Phoenix/Maricopa Cty. (AZ) 88 77 91 87 90 88 112 106 92 94 73
Rochester Metro (NY) 110 110 89 94 97 82 103 103 95 95 99
San Diego County (CA) 93 81 77 92 84 83 89 93 80 88 89
San Francisco (city of) (CA) 95 84 114 140 84 91 102 102 79 70 100
Rural S. Dakota 150 143 124 93 161 116 84 74 127 128 109
Seattle (WA) 118 111 113 138 114 127 108 148 102 85 101
St. Paul Metro (MN) 120 106 112 88 93 80 92 90 112 107 94
Syracuse/Onondaga County (NY) 99 107 95 108 104 115 111 91 101 101 108
Winston-Salem/Forsyth County (NC) 98 85 99 80 89 98 77 96 123 118 87
Yakima (WA) 98 95 107 110 112 108 116 108 104 102 75
York (PA) 119 113 74 89 99 91 105 97 107 103 117

 

Community quotient -- Along every dimension of social capital (such as social trust, inter-racial trust, etc.)  a community quotient (CQ) shows a community's performance on this dimension relative to what was predicted  given its urbanicity, ethnicity, levels of education and age distribution.  A CQ above 100 indicates that a community shows more of this community connectedness than its demographics would predict; conversely, a CQ below 100 indicates that a community shows less of this type of social capital than its demographics would suggest. Roughly 68% of all communities would fall in the 85-115 range, and almost 95% of all communities would fall in the 70-130 range.