Issuu

The Good Neighbor Experiment: Evaluation of the GNE Curriculum Outcomes for the Cohort #1 (January-September 2021)

Submitted to the United Methodist Health Ministry Fund and the Neighboring Movement

Dasha Shamrova, Ph.D Amy Kalb, D.S.W. Shea Witherspoon, BSW

Table of Content Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................. 3 List of Tables and Figures ................................................................................................................... 4 List of Acronyms ................................................................................................................................. 4 Introduction ......................................................................................................................................... 5 Background on Neighboring Interventions...................................................................................... 5 The Good Neighbor Experiment: Program Description ................................................................... 6 What are the goals of the program? ................................................................................................ 7 Logic Model for the Program .......................................................................................................... 7 Evaluation Background ........................................................................................................................ 8 Methodology ....................................................................................................................................... 8 Findings ............................................................................................................................................ 10 Change in Participants’ Knowledge ............................................................................................... 11 Change in Attitudes towards Individual and Congregation Capacity to Become Catalysts of Change in Their Neighborhoods ................................................................................................................ 12 Change in Comfort Level with Church Small Group Work ............................................................ 13 Neighboring Behaviors.................................................................................................................. 14 Change in Participants’ Facilitation Skills ...................................................................................... 15 Who are the Ones Who Dropped Out? .......................................................................................... 15 Conclusion and Recommendations ................................................................................................... 17 References......................................................................................................................................... 18 Attachment......................................................................................................................................... 19

Executive Summary • This report includes the first cohort of the Good Neighboring Experiment (GNE) program, which occurred between January 2021-September 2021. • The results include the results of 11 participants that completed both the pre and postquestionnaires. • Overall, we observed improvement across multiple outcomes of the curriculum. The largest growth in knowledge was found in participants’ ability to list assets of their communities. • Participants reported modest growth in their positive attitude toward their ability to promote good neighboring and their church’s capacity to do so. • The participants reported improvement in their comfort with organizing small group work within their churches. • Participants who completed the program shared with us that, on average, they increased the frequency and intensity of their neighboring activities in the period between January and August. • We recommend treating the findings in this report as preliminary results that give us the first clues about how things are going.

Corresponding author: Dr. Dasha Shamrova, dasha.shamrova@wichita.edu Preferred citation: Shamrova, D., Kalb, A, & Witherspoon,S. (2021). The Good Neighbor Experiment: Evaluation of the GNE Curriculum Outcomes for the Cohort #1 Curriculum Outcomes. Retrieved from: Contributors: We are grateful for the Good Neighboring Experiment Team for assistance in piloting and administering the surveys.

List of Tables and Figures Figure 1. Logic Model for the GNE Program Figure 2. Change in Participants’ Knowledge Figure 3. Change in Participants’ Attitudes towards becoming a catalyst of change Figure 4. Change in Comfort Level with Church Small Group Work Figure 5. Change in Neighboring Behaviors Figure 6. Change in Participants’ Facilitator Skills Figure 7. Comparison of Neighboring Behavior Among the Participants who completed the program and those who did not

List of Acronyms WSU – Wichita State University GNE – Good Neighbor Experiment ABCD – Asset-Based Community Development

Introduction Background on Neighboring Interventions Only one-third of the U.S population reported knowing their neighbors (Parker, Horowitz, Brown, Fry, Conh & Igielnik, 2018). Having a positive relationship with people living near us has been proven to have multiple benefits for our physical and mental health (Aneshensel & Sucoff, 1996, Ellen, Mijanovich & Dillman, 2001), employment (Bayer, Ross & Topa, 2004, Ioannides & Loury, 2004, Kleit, 2001), academic success for children and youth (Gibbons, 2002, Jargowsky & El Komi, 2009; Malecki & Elliot, 2002), and reduced crime rates (Hirschfield & Bower, 1997). Positive relationships with the neighbors are known to increase neighborhood social capital. An increase in social capital has improved mental and physical health, lowered the infant mortality rate, and give members of a community a longer life (Chen, Wang, Wegner, Gong, Fang, & Kaljee, 2014). Despite the well-established strengths of living in socially connected neighborhoods, creating social relationships between neighbors has been a challenging task for multiple communities, especially those systemically overlooked. For example, the Pew Research Center reports that it is harder to develop the feeling of trust (a component of social capital) in urban neighborhoods compared with predominantly white suburban communities (Parker et al., 2018). Therefore, interventions focused on developing social networks are an important part of the community's well-being but far less common and have less evidence-based support than infrastructural, institutional, and collective efficacy interventions (McKnight, 2010). This unfortunate situation does not allow community organizers to intervene with urban neighborhoods to increase social capital among neighbors effectively. In turn, having strong community ties can assist in finding jobs (Bayer, Ross & Topa, 2004, Ioannides & Loury, 2004, Kleit, 2001), assessing social services (Bertrand, Luttmer & Mullainathan, 2000), and supporting each other in emergencies (Sadri et al., 2018; Vachette, King & Cottrell, 2017). Lack of social capital is a risk factor for community health in natural disasters and public health crises like we are experiencing with COVID-19. Communities are especially vulnerable when they cannot find help outside of their community; they tend to go back to their neighborhood to find support. It might be challenging to do if social capital in the form of neighborhood networks has not been developed yet. There are two ways we can build social capital in a neighborhood; one is to improve the infrastructure (structural capital), and another one is to develop programming that would create opportunities for people to connect. For example, Lelieveldt (2004) conducted a study in the Netherlands focusing on how infrastructure changes (ex., Lighting, speed bumps) can impact the quality of neighboring. The study concluded by building structural capital; they could inadvertently build social capital. However, the research on the long-term impact was inconclusive. Another study focused on programming intervention in neighborhoods, including education-based support groups, community dance and sports teams, and public safety committees (Michael, 2008 as cited in Chen et al., 2014). Eight months after developing these programs, they found that community members had greater social support, improved depression, and better health outcomes (Michael, 2008 as cited in Chen et al., 2014). However, again, further research is needed to show the long-term efficacy of program development on communities. Another intervention, the Neighbors Circles, is similar to the Good Neighbor Experiment evaluated in this report. O’Connor’s study (2013) demonstrates that this intervention achieved four major outcomes in Lawrence, MA, including increased sense of community, collective efficacy,

neighboring and civic participation. This program evaluation report aims at making a small contribution in moving the field of neighboring interventions a small step further. This report particularly focuses on one element of the GNE - building individual and congregational capacity to neighbor through the faith-based curriculum centering job, abundance, and relationship.

The Good Neighbor Experiment: Program Description The Good Neighboring Experiment (GNE) program is a 5-year program conducted by the Neighboring Movement and funded by the Lilly Endowment Inc. The GNE program has an emphasis on asset-based community development. This program is done by focusing on the strength and gifts of our neighbors versus the needs and deficits in the community. The GNE program intends to deepen the relationships within the neighborhood to love their neighbors as it is a mandate from the God, to combat loneliness within our community, build the social capital within the neighborhoods, transform the lives of others, and spreading joy. The concept of seeing oneself as a neighbor versus a person who proselytizes allows for a worldview that sees abundance over scarcity. That abundance allows for hope, optimism, and contentment. This is a preliminary report of Cohort #1, which occurred from January through September of 2021. The GNE program occurred within church congregations that committed to becoming a part of Healthy Congregations. They were tasked with recruiting 4 laypersons and 1 staff person to lead GNE in their congregation. The GNE program trains congregants to utilize their talents to build on their strengths and positively impact their community. The GNE program includes assigned learning cohorts, workshops, appropriate worship materials, a 24-week small group curriculum on good neighboring, asset mapping, and the 8 Front Doors Project Block Mapping. The learning cohort will be other congregants at their training and peer coaching sessions. The workshops included additional leaders within their church for three workshops throughout the GNE program. Each congregation was provided materials to supplement worship at the congregational level that focused on neighboring. The leaders also led their congregation through 24 weeks of activities of a small group curriculum. This small group curriculum included the theological approach to neighboring, which focused on identifying their neighborhood's abundance, relationships, and joy. Asset mapping was completed in their neighborhood to understand the connection of shared mission and interests within their neighborhood. The 8 Front Door Project was done to connect with the 8 front doors closest to your own and to meet those neighbors. Finally, the workshops concluded with the plan to take this new knowledge and make actionable steps to connect with the opportunities to engage intentionally with the community. Congregations selected for the GNE program included Great Plains United Methodist churches, other United Methodist Churches, and non-United Methodist churches. Churches interested in participating were expected to commit to the leadership team of 4 laypersons and 1 staff person. The benefactors of the GNE program are the congregations and their local community, with the goal of various growth indicators that show the strengthening impact of the GNE on their communities.

What are the goals of the program? Goals of the GNE program include: • Helping congregations strengthen social and emotional health not only in their congregation but in their community. • Move churches from a scarcity model to one of abundance and joy. • Give congregations the skills they need to reach out to their neighbors and communities with an asset mindset. • Empower congregations to identify their strengths and merge those with the strengths of their communities.

Logic Model for the Program These goals were/could be achieved in multiple ways. The logic model below is the evaluators’ perception of the mechanism of outcome achievement embedded in the GNE program. This perception is based on the analysis of the program documents, conversation with the GNE coordinators, and our interpretation of the current literature on the neighboring interventions. This is not the final version of the model. The logical models are meant to evolve as the program develops over time.

Figure 1. Logic Model for the GNE Program

Evaluation Background Purpose and Intended Use: This is a preliminary report on the outcomes of Cohort #1. This data should be used as a pilot to improve the program curriculum. Considering the COVID-related circumstances and small sample size, this data should not be used to make major programmatic decisions. Rather this data should be thought of as a starting point for accumulating a body of evidence related to the Good Neighboring Experiment program. Scope: This evaluation was conducted from January to September 2021. It focuses only on the GNE curriculum part of the program. Specifically, it addresses only short and intermediate outcomes outlined in the logic model above. The curriculum was delivered online and had no geographical eligibility requirements. Stakeholder engagement: Our partners from the Neighboring Movement were engaged in developing and piloting the questionnaire used to collect the data for this report. Particularly, the Neighboring Movement and GNE coordinators were engaged in aligning the questionnaire with the Christian-based content pertinent to their project values and culture. Evaluation team: Dr. Shamrova, Dr, Kalb, and Ms. Witherspoon were external evaluators to the program. They have not participated in the design of the intervention or its delivery. No conflict of interest has been identified. Prior evaluation: Based on our knowledge this program has not been evaluated prior to this report.

Methodology Overview: This program evaluation employs survey-based methods to estimate the changes that occur before participants enter the program and after its completion. The workshop participants were provided a link to an online questionnaire. This program evaluation utilizes a pre-experimental Pre-Post test design without randomization and comparison/control groups. The pilot nature of the project informed the choice of methodology. The curriculum participants went through the workshops related to good neighboring in the time between pre-post tests. We will be focusing on answering the following evaluation questions in this report: 1) How does the GNE workshop curriculum affect participants’: • Knowledge about neighboring; • Attitude towards individual and church capacity to become catalysts of change in their neighborhoods; • Comfort level with neighboring skills • Neighboring behaviors • Facilitation Skills (if applicable)

2) How are those who completed the GNE curriculum different in their characteristics from those who dropped out? Recruitment: This is the first group of participants recruited for participation in the curriculum in January 2021 and was scheduled to finish in September 2021. The curriculum was delivered online. The curriculum includes four labs that focus on neighboring skills, leadership, and community asset mapping. The participants were asked to complete activities such as meet their neighbors and sustain their relationship during the GNE. The curriculum provides COVID-specific ideas on safe neighboring during the pandemic. The Neighboring movement used its existing network of churches to recruit the participants. Data Collection: The online survey data was collected directly by the WSU Research Team computers using the Qualtrics platform. We administered the online questionnaire twice: once in January at the beginning of the first workshop and the last time in September at the end of the last workshop. The pre and postquestionnaires were matched based on the participants’ birthdays and zip codes. No compensation for participation in this survey was provided. The questionnaire instruments are attached to this report. What did we measure? We collected the data to measure the following participants’ characteristics: • Demographics: age, gender, race, ethnicity, marital status, employment, religious affiliation, zip codes • Knowledge about neighboring was measured using 11 questions, including knowledge about personal gifts, how meaningful neighboring relationships look, and how to create joy in a neighborhood, among others. Participants responded to the statements on the scale from “1” - completely disagree to “5” completely agree. • Attitude towards individual and congregation’s capacity to become catalysts of change in their neighborhoods was measured by asking to respond to 6 statements. For example, “I am ready to make a change in my neighborhood,” “I feel that our congregation has a high energy level.” Participants responded to the statements on the scale from “1” - completely disagree to “5” - completely agree. • Comfort level with church small group work was measured by asking to respond to 6 statements. For example, “I understand how to recruit a small group for the Good Neighbor Experiment,” “I am confident in conducting idea activities and experiment reflections.” Participants responded to the statements on the scale from “1” - completely disagree to “5” - completely agree. • Neighboring behaviors are measured in regards to frequencies of certain behaviors (ex. Number of an hour per week spent building relationship with neighbors) and the quality of relationship building (number of neighbors whose names are known to the participants; the number of neighbors they can call acquaintances, and number of neighbors they have a relationship with) • Facilitation skills (if applicable): Some participants were also prepared to become future facilitators of the GNE curriculum. We measured the increase in their facilitation skills before and after the program using 6 statements. For example, “I can articulate the mode of ABCD,” “I can articulate a theological framework for neighboring.” Participants responded to the statements on the scale from “1” completely disagree to “5” - completely agree.

All items used in the design of data collection instruments are unique and tailored for the GNE programming, in particular. These scales were not validated and statistically tested before the use. Sample: Pre-test data collected in January included 35 valid responses. Post-test collected at the end of September contained 11 valid responses who completed the full survey or a significant portion of the survey. Sixteen participants attended the final workshop, which made the response rate - 69%. About 31% of all respondents from January completed the questionnaire in September. It means that about 69% of participants have dropped out of the program. Demographics: Pre and post-test data were submitted by 11 people in total. Of these 11, 7 indicated they were female, and 4 indicated they were male. The racial demographics of the group were reported as 10 were White and 1 was African American. All of the 11 held a college degree, and 10 of the 11 held a graduate degree. The marital background included 3 who reported they were single and 8 who reported they were married. Employment at a full-time job was reported by 10 of the 11 participants. The religious background included 7 who identified as Methodist, 1 as Evangelical, 1 as Mennonite, and 2 selected other religious backgrounds. The geographical locations included 8 from Kansas, 1 from Arizona, 1 from North Carolina, and 1 from Florida. Data Analysis: The data analysis was conducted using descriptive and non-parametric statistics. Nonparametric statistics were used due to the non-normal distribution of data and small sample size. All vertical column charts represent values in numbers of participants. The bar chart reflects the frequencies of certain behavior or a number of neighbors.

Findings Summary: Overall, we observed improvement across multiple outcomes of the curriculum. Participants reported an increase in their knowledge, comfort level in organizing their small group work in their churches, and an increase in their frequency of building relationships with neighbors and creating deeper connections with people in their neighborhoods. However, we observed only small improvements in the participants; perception of their congregation capacity to implement the Good Neighbor Experiment.

Change in Participants’ Knowledge

Figure 2. Change in Participants’ Knowledge We have measured the knowledge about neighboring using 11 indicators shown in Figure 2. We observed that the number of people who are confident in their knowledge increase across all indicators. The largest growth in knowledge was found in participants’ ability to list assets of their communities. It highlights the importance of reframing community work from the Asset-Based Framework as it is evident that none of the participants who completed the program was not applying it before coming to the workshops. In addition, more people learn about how to grow into being a good neighbor, how to recognize meaningful relationships with neighbors, how to find abundance, create joy, and what to do to improve neighbors’ relationships. In addition, we calculated an average score to reflect participants' knowledge by calculating the These findings indicate about mean of all knowledge item responses. Knowledge scores ranged from 1 to 5. Before participating in the program, 11 respondents 53% of knowledge increase scored on average 2.97 on the scale from 1 to 5 . After the program, among the participants the participants scored 4.54 on the knowledge scale. These findings indicate about 53% of knowledge increase among the participants.

Change in Attitudes towards Individual and Congregation Capacity to Become Catalysts of Change in Their Neighborhoods

Figure 3. Change in Participants’ Attitudes towards becoming a catalyst of change Participants reported some growth in their positive attitude toward their ability to promote good neighboring and their church capacity to do so. Those who completed the program started having very positive attitudes. Therefore, the growth in readiness to make change and perception of potential to be a good neighbor is not that large. We see another trend related to a congregation's capacity to serve as an agent of change in the community. Seven out of 11 participants who completed the program expressed their hope for the future of their congregation; only four out of 11 felt that their congregation has high energy, and two out of 11 reported feeling that the congregation has a relationship with neighbors near These findings indicate church buildings. We calculated a cumulative score to represent the attitudes of modest 8% improvement in participants across these five questions1. The attitude score ranges attitude towards the from 1 to 5. Participants, on average, scored 3.58 out of 5 before possibility of positive changes the program and 3.88 out of 5 after the program, indicating a modest 8% improvement in attitude towards the possibility of in their neighborhood and church. positive changes in their neighborhood and church.

Chronbach’s Alpha =.562

Change in Comfort Level with Church Small Group Work

Figure 4. Change in Comfort Level with Church Small Group Work

The participants reported improvement in their comfort with organizing small group work within their churches. The vast majority of them have agreed that they are confident in the ability to do what the curriculum asks them to translate in their churches after participating in the program. We calculated a cumulative score to reflect the comfort level with organizing small groups in their churches across 6 questions included in the graph2. The skills score ranges from 1 to 5. Participants, on average scored 3.59 out of 5 before the program and 4.44 out of 5 after the program, indicating a 24% improvement in comfort level in this area.

Chronbach’s Alpha =.778

These findings indicate a 24% improvement in the participants’ comfort level with organizing small group work within their churches

Neighboring Behaviors

Figure 5. Change in Neighboring Behaviors Participants who completed the program shared with us that, on average, they increased the frequency and intensity of their neighboring activities in the period between January and August. The number of neighbors the participants knew the names of grew 2.8 times. The number of neighbors they can call acquaintances grew 4 times. Participants who completed the program have built the relationship on average with 6 neighbors comparatively with 1 neighbor they had a relationship within January 2021. In addition, they tend to spend more hours building relationships with neighbors now (2 hours a week on average) Number of neighbors the than in January (0.5 hours on average). This growth can be explained by program participation as well as warm weather participants knew the names of and improvement of the COVID situation as well. It is hard to grew 2.8 times detangle those factors in this data; more qualitative interviews are needed to understand the change in their behavior. The other two trends change in the number of events attended, and the number of hours spent outside in the neighborhood per week can be highly subjected to weather and COVID-related factors.

Change in Participants’ Facilitation Skills

Figure 6. Change in Participants’ Facilitator Skills Five respondents who completed the workshop were also a part of the facilitator's cohort. We asked them about their confidence with the facilitation skills. We have not observed much change with the facilitation skill as most of the facilitators were quite confident in many elements of the workshop facilitation at the beginning of the programming.

Who are the Ones Who Dropped Out? We conducted an ad-hoc analysis to tease out the difference between those who completed the program and those who did not. This analysis yielded some statistically significant results. • Age difference: those who completed tend to be younger (average 41 years old) than those who did not (55 years old)3. No other demographic characteristics are related to the status in the program - completion or non-completion. • Comfort level with organizing small groups in their churches: The participants who completed the program scored higher (m=3.6) on their comfort level with organizing small groups in their churches at the pre-test than those who have not finished the program (m=3) 4. It might mean

Mann-Whitney U indicates statistical significance, U=(N1=24, N2=11) = 73.000, Z=-2.09, p<.05

Mann-Whitney U indicates statistical significance, U=(N1=23, N2=11) = 69.500, Z=-2.23, p<.05

that initially perceived confidence in their ability to do well (self-efficacy) might be impacting participants’ decision to stay in the program. • Time spent outside at the pre-test: Another interesting difference is that those who have not completed the final survey tend to spend on average 7 hours outside before engaging with the program, while those who completed only spend 1 hour a week on the average outside in their neighborhood.5 • Neighboring behavior at the pre-test: We have also noticed a few results that are not statistically significant but practically important. Those who have not completed the program tend to score higher on the most important indicators of neighboring behavior even before they participate in the program (see the graph below). We can speculate that those who have not finished the program have already established neighboring behavior patterns, which could be a factor for their decision to discontinue.

Figure 7. Comparison of Neighboring Behavior Among the Participants who completed the program and those who did not

Mann-Whitney U indicates statistical significance, U=(N1=23, N2=11) = 70.000, Z=-2.09, p<.05

Conclusion and Recommendations • Note: We recommend treating the findings in this report as preliminary results that give us the first clues about how things are going. These findings are based on the data from only 11 individuals who completed the program and completed pre and post-questionnaires. They are not obsolete and not final. • Positive trends: Participants told us they learned more based on key 11 indicators we hoped to achieve. They also expressed the increase in the comfort level in organizing small groups within their churches. It might indicate that the curriculum, even delivered online, does reach the audience and affect their growth. • Future focus on energizing the congregations: Considering that the GNE is designed to impact large systems like neighborhoods and communities through building the capacity of change agents like congregation members and churches, attention to their role as change agents is warranted. While we can say that overall those who completed the GNE curriculum have shown a positive attitude towards their neighborhood change-maker roles, reportedly, the same does not apply to their congregations and churches. The participants were skeptical of their congregation's energy level and current relationships that their churches have with the neighborhoods. These findings might demonstrate several things: o The curriculum might more effect on individual attitudes and motivations rather than on congregation’s dynamics; o COVID-19 prevented the curriculum and individual knowledge to trickle down to organizational shift within church organizing; o Future efforts might be focused specifically on what is happening in small groups within churches. Re-energizing the congregations might be a separate task that needs to be monitored. • Future focus on retention of the participants: the data is not conclusive on specific reasons why people dropped out. We can speculate that COVID-related changes might have been one of the reasons for it, especially for the participants with more caregiving responsibilities. The findings suggest that those who are younger and more enthusiastic about neighboring were the ones who stayed in the programs. o On the one hand, older people might be more cautious meeting neighbors without knowing their vaccination status. This COVID-related uncertainty might also be a factor for less positive attitudes and not seeing neighboring as an important role for some participants. If this is true, we might suggest reconnecting with those who dropped out to invite them to be members of new cohorts. o On the other hand, those who dropped out have reported knowing many of their neighbors and having relationships with them. For the GNE to be interesting for them, we would suggest offering those “advanced” participants an opportunity to “fast track” programs to help them become champions of their neighborhood and utilize their potential faster.

References Aneshensel, C. S., & Sucoff, C. A. (1996). The neighborhood context and adolescent mental health. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 37 (2), 293–310. Bayer, P., Ross, S., & Topa, G. (2004). Place of work and place of residence: Informal hiring networks and labor market outcomes (Working paper). New Haven: Economics Department, Yale University. Bertrand, M., Luttmer, E. F. P., & Mullainathan, S. (2000). Network effects and welfare cultures. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 115 (3), 1019–1055 Chen, X., Wang, P., Wegner, R., Gong, J., Fang, X., & Kaljee, L. (2014). Measuring Social Capital Investment: Scale Development and examination of links to social capital and perceived stress. Social Indicators Research, 120(3), 669–687. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-014-0611-0 Ellen, I. G., Mijanovich, T., & Dillman, K. (2001). Neighborhood effects on health: Exploring the links and assessing the evidence. Journal of Urban Affairs, 23 (3), 391–408. Gibbons, S. (2002). Neighbourhood effects on educational achievement: Evidence from the census and national child development study . London: Centre for the Economics of Education, London School of Economics and Political Science. Hirschfield, A., & Bowers, K. J. (1997). The effect of social cohesion on levels of recorded crime in disadvantaged areas. Urban Studies, 34 (8), 1275–1295. Ioannides, Y. M., & Loury, L. D. (2004). Job information networks, neighborhood effects, and inequality. Journal of Economic Literature, 42 (4), 1056–1093. Jargowsky, P., & El Komi, M. (2009). Before or after the bell? School context and neighborhood effects on student achievement (Working Paper 28). Washington: National Center for Analysis of Longitudinal Data in Education Research, Urban Institute. Kleit, R. (2001). The role of neighborhood social networks in scattered-site public housing residents’ search for jobs. Housing Policy Debate, 12 (3), 541–573. Lelieveldt, H. (2004). Helping citizens help themselves. Urban Affairs Review, 39(5), 531–551. https://doi.org/10.1177/1078087404263601 Malecki, C. K., & Elliot, S. N. (2002). Children’s social behaviors as predictors of academic achievement: A longitudinal analysis. School Psychology Quarterly, 17(1), 1-23. McKnight, J., & Block, P. (2012). The Abundant Community: Awakening the Power of Families and Neighborhoods. Berrett-Koehler Publishers. O’Connor, B. (2013). From isolation to community: Exploratory study of a sense-of-community intervention. Journal of Community Psychology, 41(8), 973–991. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcop.21587 Parker, K., Horowitz, J. Brown, A, Fry, R., Cohn, D & Igielnik, R. (2018). How urban, suburban and rural residents interact with their neighbors. Per Research Center Social and Demographic Trends. Retrieved from: https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2018/05/22/how-urban-suburban-and-rural-residents-interact-with-theirneighbors/ Sadri, A. M., Ukkusuri, S. V., Lee, S., Clawson, R., Aldrich, D., Megan, S. N., . . . Kelly, D. (2018). The role of social capital, personal networks, and emergency responders in post-disaster recovery and resilience: A study of rural communities in Indiana. Natural Hazards, 90(3), 1377-1406. doi:http://dx.doi.org.proxy.wichita.edu/10.1007/s11069-017-3103-0 Tatian, P., Kingsley, G., Parilla, J. & Pendall, R. (2012). Building Successful Neighborhoods. White Paper by the Urban Institute. Retrieved from: https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/25346/412557-buildingsuccessful-neighborhoods.pdf

Attachment [All participants will need consent prior to completing the survey]

Questionnaire for the Good Neighbor Cohort Participants (Post-Test) Please mark the appropriate answer on each question. If you feel uncomfortable answering a question, simply mark “Prefer not to answer”. 1. In order for us to match your responses before and after the program, we will create an identification number for each of the questionnaires. This number will be the combination of your birthday date. Please write here in numbers only in the following format: MMDDYYYY (ex. 03071987) ___________ 2. What best describes your gender identity: a. Female b. Male c. Specify if not listed: _____________ d. Prefer not to answer 3. What best describes your race (select all that apply): a. African American/Black b. Native American/Alaskan Native c. Pacific Islander d. Asian e. Native Hawaiian f. Caucasian/White g. Middle Eastern h. Specify if not listed: ____________________ i. Prefer not to answer 4.

What best describes your ethnicity (select all that apply): a. Hispanic/Latinx b. Non-Hispanic/Latinx c. Specify if not listed: ____________________ d. Prefer not to answer

5. Please check the highest level of education you have completed: a. Did not complete High School b. GED/High School Diploma

c. d. e. f. g. h.

Some College Undergraduate Degree Graduate Degree Doctoral/Advanced Medical Other: __________________ Prefer not to answer

6. What best describes your current marital/relationship status: a. Single (Never Married) b. Committed Relationship/Partnership/Polyamorous c. Married d. Separated e. Divorced f. Widowed g. Specify if not listed: _____________ h. Prefer not to answer 7.

Are you employed? a. Full Time b. Part Time c. Unemployed, Seeking employment d. Not Seeking Employment (ie. retired, stay at home parent) e. Specify if not listed: _________________ f. Prefer not to answer

8. What is your religious affiliation? a. Methodist b. Baptist c. Presbyterian d. Catholic e. Evangelical f. Lutheran g. Mennonite h. Specify if not listed:___________________ i. Prefer not to answer 9. What is your zipcode? ______________________

10. Let’s talk about what you know about the following as of now. It is ok to not know something. This is probably why you are part of this program. How much do you agree or disagree with the following statements? Simply mark the box that best reflects your response.

Completely Disagree disagree

Neither agree or disagree

I can articulate why neighboring is important for my community I know my own gifts (strengths, skills, talents, hobbies) as a neighbor I know specific ways I can grow into being a good neighbor. I know what it looks like to have meaningful relationships with my neighbors I know ways to create meaningful relationships with neighbors I can list the assets of my community I know how to find the strengths (abundance) of my neighborhood I know how to create joy with my neighbors I understand how God models good neighboring

Agree

Completely I don’t Agree know

Prefer not to answer

I am aware of design elements of my house that facilitate or hinder neighboring I know what actions I could take in my neighborhood I am ready to make change in my neighborhood I believe I have the capability to be a good neighbor I feel a lot of hope for the future of our congregation I feel that our congregation has a high energy level (eg. members take initiative, shared leadership among members, connected to the community). I feel my congregation has relationships with neighbors near our church building

Now let’s talk about what you are doing in your neighborhood as of now. Give us your best guess for how many hours per week you spend on the following activities. 11. How many hours per week do you spend on building relationships with your neighbors? a.___________ b. Prefer not to answer 12. How many hours a week do you spend outside of your house in your neighborhood? (ex. Gardening, reading outside, working on the car) a. _______ b. Prefer not to answer

13. Of the neighbors who live in close proximity to you, how many do you know by name? a. ________ b. Prefer not to answer 14. Of the neighbors who live in close proximity to you, how many are acquaintances (i.e. you know some of their interests and skills)? a. ____________ b. Prefer not to answer 15. Of the neighbors who live in close proximity to you, how many do you have a relationship with (i.e. you might send them a card, or ask them to borrow something)? a. ___________ b. Prefer not to answer 16. How many neighborhood events did you participate in last year (ex. clean up day, block party)? a. ___________ b. I was not aware of any neighborhood events c. Prefer not to answer 17. How much do you agree or disagree with the following statements? Simply mark the box with the response that best reflects your answer.

Completely Disagree disagree

Neither agree or disagree

I understand how to recruit a small group for the Good Neighbor Experiment I know how to connect neighboring with the Bible I am confident in conducting Idea activities and experiment reflections I can handle the situation when things are not going

Agree

Completely I don’t Agree know

Prefer not to answer

as planned during the sessions I have ideas on how I can make the Good Neighbor Experiment to fit my context I live according to the program values of abundance, relationship, and joy 18. Are you planning to take part in additional training for the trainers? It means you might have agreed to train others who will facilitate the Great Neighboring Experiment in their communities. If you are unsure, feel free to contact the workshop organizers. a. Yes, I will train other people on how to train facilitators b. No c. Not sure 19. If you are planning to train facilitators, please respond to the following: How much do you agree or disagree with the following statements? Simply mark the box that best reflects your answer. Completely Disagree disagree

Neither agree or disagree

I can articulate the model of AssetBased Community Development I can articulate the advantages of an assetbased approach over a needsbased approach I can describe how neighboring improves community health

Agree

Completely I don’t Agree know

Prefer not to answer

I can articulate a theological framework for neighboring I seek to live according to the program values of abundance, relationship and joy I see neighboring as a spiritual practice that is transforma-tive for me, rather than as a church growth model or an evangelism tool I am comfortable teaching church leaders a group discern- ment model for a changing society

Thank you for taking the time to complete this survey!