Community Resources in the Neighborhood—Chicago Youth Development Study

Abstract

The Community Resources in Neighborhood—Chicago Youth Development Study (CRIN-CYDS) is a specialized psychological scale designed to quantify the perceived availability and utilization of essential resources within a respondent’s immediate neighborhood environment. Developed by Tolan, Gorman-Smith, and Henry (2001) as part of the overarching Chicago Youth Development Study, this instrument focuses on assessing structural, social, and service-oriented assets crucial for positive youth and family development. It provides distinct measures for resources available to both youths and their adult caregivers, highlighting differential access and usage patterns.

Keywords

Community Resources, Neighborhood Environment, Youth Development, Social Ecology, Resource Utilization, Chicago Youth Development Study, Assessment Tool, Violence Prevention.

Authors

Patrick H. Tolan, Deborah Gorman-Smith, Dennis B. Henry.

Purpose

The primary purpose of the CRIN-CYDS is to systematically assess the presence, accessibility, and actual use of various essential community assets within the geographic boundaries of the respondent’s neighborhood. This assessment is vital for researchers studying the impact of the social environment on behavioral outcomes, particularly those related to violence and delinquency among adolescents.

By distinguishing between the availability of resources (e.g., presence of a park) and the respondent’s engagement with those resources (e.g., using the recreational facilities), the scale allows for a nuanced understanding of how the neighborhood structure supports or impedes positive individual functioning. The instrument is tailored to yield separate scores for youths and adult caregivers, recognizing that their needs and interaction patterns with the community differ significantly.

Construct

The scale measures the construct of Neighborhood Community Resources, which is operationalized through the availability and utilization of key institutional, social, and physical assets. These assets include social networks (relatives), commercial infrastructure (grocery stores), institutional supports (churches, schools, clinics), recreational spaces (parks, entertainment), and functional services (public transportation, neighborhood organizations).

The underlying theoretical framework often relates to social ecological models, which posit that the immediate environment (the neighborhood) plays a critical role in shaping developmental trajectories. A high score on this scale indicates a perceived richness of resources, suggesting a potentially more supportive and protective environment against negative outcomes, consistent with findings from the Chicago Youth Development Study.

Validity

While specific detailed validity coefficients (such as convergent or discriminant validity) are typically presented in the corresponding technical report, the construction of the CRIN-CYDS suggests a strong emphasis on Content Validity. The items were developed specifically to cover a broad range of resources deemed essential for community function and positive youth development based on the extensive research framework of the Chicago Youth Development Study.

Furthermore, the utility of the scale in predicting relevant external criteria (e.g., reduced violence or improved academic outcomes) within the longitudinal study framework serves as evidence of its Criterion Validity. Future users should consult the 2001 technical report by Tolan et al. for specific psychometric data supporting the scale’s validity structure.

Reliability

The reliability of the CRIN-CYDS, as is common for newly developed instruments, was addressed in the 2001 technical report. Reliability typically encompasses measures of Internal Consistency (e.g., Cronbach’s Alpha) to ensure that the items measuring community resources cohere effectively, and Test-Retest Reliability, confirming stability over time.

The scoring procedure, which involves computing a mean score from multiple items, relies on the assumption of adequate internal consistency for the resulting composite scores, both for the Youth and Adult Caregiver sub-scales. Researchers are directed to the primary source documentation for the specific alpha coefficients reported for the various samples within the Chicago Youth Development Study cohort.

Factor Analysis

Although the provided source content does not detail the factor structure, the separation of items used for scoring (e.g., exclusion of items 9 and 11, and different reverse coded patterns for youth vs. caregiver scores) strongly implies that an exploratory or confirmatory Factor Analysis was conducted during the scale development process.

This analysis likely aimed to confirm the unidimensionality of the “Community Resources” construct or, alternatively, to identify specific sub-factors (e.g., Institutional Resources vs. Social Resources). The resulting mean scores suggest the authors ultimately opted for a single, composite index of resources, derived from a specific subset of the 13 items for each target population.

Instrument

Test Type: Self-report or Interview-administered psychological scale.

Format: 13 dichotomous (True/False) items designed to assess the presence and utilization of community resources.

Language Available: English (Original development language).

Population Group: Youth and Adult Caregivers/Parents.

Age Group: Adolescents and adults residing in urban communities (specifically Chicago).

Population Details: Developed within the context of the longitudinal Chicago Youth Development Study, often focusing on high-risk, urban populations.

Test Methodology: Respondents indicate whether statements regarding neighborhood resources are True or False. Scoring involves assigning point values (True=1, False=2) and calculating a mean score after applying a specific reverse coded scheme, which differs based on whether the score is calculated for the youth or the adult caregiver.

Keywords

Neighborhood Assessment, Urban Studies, Social Support, Resource Availability, Psychometric Instrument, Reverse coded.

Authors

Author ORCID Identifier: Not specified in source content.

Affiliation Email addresses: Not specified in source content.

Correspondence Address: Families and Communities Research Group, Department of Psychiatry, The University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL.

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The scale was developed and documented in 2001. Information regarding specific permissions and licensing fees for commercial use is not provided in the source material, though the instrument is widely documented in public health compendiums, suggesting accessibility for academic research purposes.

This instrument can be found on pages 329-330 of Measuring Violence-Related Attitudes, Behaviors, and Influences Among Youths: A Compendium of Assessment Tools. The original PDF can be downloaded here: http://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/YV_Compendium.pdf.

Reference’s

1. Tolan PH, Gorman-Smith D, Henry DB. Chicago Youth Development Study Community and Neighborhood Measure: construction and reliability technical report. Families and Communities Research Group, Department of Psychiatry, The University of Illinois at Chicago, 2001.
2. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Measuring Violence-Related Attitudes, Behaviors, and Influences Among Youths: A Compendium of Assessment Tools. Atlanta, GA: CDC; 2003. (Contains the instrument on pages 329-330).

Items of the Community Resources in Neighborhood—Chicago Youth Development Study

Scoring Details: Point values are assigned as follows: True=1, False =2. Scoring requires computation of a mean score, with specific items excluded and others reverse coded depending on the target population (Adult Caregiver or Youth).

• 1. I have relatives living in my neighborhood.

• 2. There is a grocery store in or near my neighborhood.

• 3. There is a church or synagogue that I could attend in my neighborhood.

• 4. There is a clinic or other medical services near my neighborhood.

• 5. There are entertainment places in my neighborhood.

• 6. There are parks that we can use in or near my neighborhood.

• 7. Public transportation is convenient for me to use.

• 8. There are neighborhood or block organizations that deal with neighborhood issues or problems.

• 9. There is a school in this neighborhood.

• 10. We regularly do our shopping in my neighborhood.

• 11. I attend religious services in my neighborhood.

• 12. When I need medical services‚ I use those in the neighborhood.

• 13. I use the recreational facilities available in my neighborhood. ?

Scoring for Resources Available to Adult Caregiver: Items 9 and 11 are not included in calculating the score. Items 1-8, 10, 12 and 13 should be reverse coded. Compute a mean score from these items.

Scoring for Resources Available to Youths: Items 9 and 11 are not included in calculating the score. Items 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 12 and 13 should be reverse coded. Compute a mean score from these items.