Transcript Caring Index as a Project Evaluation Tools for Measuring

Caring Index as a Project Evaluation
Tools for Measuring Social Capital
WONG Shum-yee, Pauline
Aberdeen Kai-fong Welfare Association
Social Service Centre
31/3/2011
Background

Caring Estate Project’s Background
A 3-year pilot project (1.4.03 – 31.3.06)

Initiated by
: AKWASSC
HK Southern District Women’s
Association

Sponsored by : Community Investment and
Inclusion Fund ( CIIF )
Background

Target Estates : Ap Lei Chau Estate (Population: 16,000);
Yue Kwong Estate (Population: 5,000)

Target Groups : Individuals, families, businesses,
organizations (of private and/or public
sector)
Background

Project objective:
To build up a quality and caring community
through “networking” the social capital.

Project strategy: Developing network that initiate
cross-sector collaboration in
Southern District.
Background

Outcomes to be achieved:
- Self-help and Mutual-help
- Social Solidarity
- Social Participation
- Social Inclusion
Social
Capital
Background
How to measure the outcome of social
capital of the above project?
 Cooperation between AKWASSC and
Asia-Pacific Institute of Ageing Studies,
Lingnan University

Research Purpose

To develop and validate an measurement
instrument / protocol to measure the
outcome of social capital
Research Purpose

To develop and validate the designated
programmes which can effectively
enhance the attributes of social capital
Research Framework
(1) Attentiveness
Programme
Level
3 Guiding Principles
(2) Competence
Programme-specific Items
(3) Responsiveness
Output Level
(e.g. no. of programmes implemented, no. of contacts for volunteers etc.)
Five Domains
1. Social Solidarity
Outcome Level
Social
Capital
2. Social Inclusion
3. Social Participation
4. Self Help & Mutual Help
5. Social Network
Research Framework
Definition of Social Capital

“Refers to the institutions, relationships,
and norms that shape the quality and
quantity of a society’s social interactions”

“It is the glue that holds them together”
(The World Bank,1990)
Research Framework

“The basic premise of social capital is
that interaction enables people to build
communities, to commit themselves to
each other, and to knit the social fabric.”
(Smith, 2007)
Research Framework
• Outcome Level: Caring Index
Outcome of Social Capital
1.
2.
3.
4.
Caring Index
=
Social solidarity
Social inclusion
Social participation
Self help and mutual help
X
Social Network
Research Framework
Social Capital : Identifying the domains and facets
5 Domains
Social Solidarity
Social Inclusion
Social Participation
Self Help and Mutual
Help
Social Network
1st Phase
2nd Phase
145 Items
58 Items
Social Cohesion / Acceptance of Diversity
Sense of Belonging
Trust and Reciprocal
38
14
Integration
Harmonious
Conflict & Violence
Social Norm
18
9
Motivation / Attitude to Community
Voluntary
Involvement
Information & Communication
28
10
Self Reliance
Independent Living
Contribution
Sociality
34
8
Family Network
Friend Network
Neighbour Network
Formal Network(Social Organization)
Business Network
27
17
20 Facets
Research Framework
(1) Attentiveness
Programme
Level
3 Guiding Principles
(2) Competence
Programme-specific Items
(3) Responsiveness
Output Level
(e.g. no. of programmes implemented, no. of contacts for volunteers etc.)
Five Domains
1. Social Solidarity
Outcome Level
Social
Capital
2. Social Inclusion
3. Social Participation
4. Self Help & Mutual Help
5. Social Network
Research Framework
 Programme
Level: C.A.R.
1. Creating a Strong Neighbourhood Through
volunteerism
2. Components of Care
a. Competence
b. Attentiveness
c. Responsiveness
Research Framework
C.A.R. : Identifying the domains and facets
3 Domains
1st Phase
2nd Phase
104 Items
42 Items
Knowledge
Rational Thought
Personal Quality
Experience
39
17
Attentiveness
Awareness
Concern
Respect
27
13
Responsiveness
Motivation
Action
Interaction
38
12
Competence
10 Facets
Validation of measurement
instrument
Validation method
 The initial instrument has been validated
through an item reduction process and a
panel review
1. Content Validity
2. Internal
Consistency Reliability
Validation of Measurement
Instrument

Procedure of Caring Index Validation
Stage 1
Stage 2
• Develop the initial CI questionnaires
• 5 key domains with 21facets and 145 items
• Items generated were based on literatures on social
network, social capital, and the existing measurement
instrument or scales were modified or adopted
• Pilot test for the CI questionnaires
• 43 respondents from different sectors
Validation of Measurement
Instrument

Caring Index
Stage 3
Stage 4
• Refinement of the CI questionnaires
• 1,040 samples received in the first phase of the
study
• 13 facets and 58 items remained after refinement
• Application of the validated CI questionnaire
• A sample of 509 residents ,shop owners and
organization representatives were involved
Validation of Measurement
Instrument

C. A.R.
Stage 1
Stage 2
• Developed the initial C.A.R. questionnaires
• 3 key domains with 10 facets and 104 items
• Items generated were based on the literatures on the
concept of care, volunteerism and the existing measurement
instrument or scales were modified or adopted
• Pilot test for the C.A.R. questionnaires
• 61 respondents from different sectors
Validation of Measurement
Instrument

C. A.R.
Stage 3
Stage 4
• Refinement of the C.A.R. questionnaires
• 205 samples received in the first phase of the study
• Core items and programme-specific items were
merged
• 42 items remained after refinement
• Application of the validated C. A.R. questionnaire
• A sample of 200 respondents who participated in
designated programmes with C. A. R components
involved
Research Procedure
Caring Index Baseline study
Assumption:
1. Everything being equal
2. Snowball effect
Design designated for C. A. R. programmes
Evaluate the effectiveness of designated programmes
Level 1: programme evaluation
Level 2: Evaluate the link between CI
and C.A.R.
Data Collection
Type
Number of
Questionnaires
Targets (Number of Questionnaires)
1st
Phase
2nd
Phase
Individual
828
410
Residents in Southern District
Organization
102
45
Mutual Aid Committees, Resident Organizations, District
Board members, Government Departments, Housing
Society, Women Organizations, Schools, Religious
Bodies, NGOs
Business
110
45
Caring Shops, Shops in Public and Private Housing
Estates, Shops in Commercial Areas, Factories
Total
1040 (1st Phase) / 500 (2nd Phase)
Data Collection
Quota Sampling
 Interviewer Training
 Monitoring System

Research Result Demonstration
Caring index = Coefficient of the combined mean scores of the four components
x respondents ‘ reported size of the networks
C=
(∑S1M1n + ∑S2M2n + ∑S3m3n + ∑S4M4n)
Kx5
Caring index of Southern District:
2004
• 171
2006
2008
• 214
• 313
Research Result Demonstration
Research Result Demonstration
Research Result Demonstration
Research Result Demonstration
Research Result Demonstration
Research Result Demonstration
Research Result Demonstration
Research Result Demonstration
Research Sample Demonstration
Research Result Demonstration
Research Result Demonstration
Pre and Post test Questionnaires in CI and C.A.R
 Volunteer group with 15 members
 Period : 2/2008 – 5/2008
Example of designated programme:
Date
No. of
Sessions
Content
Training
2 – 3/08
4
C.A.R Training
Services
3 – 4/08
3
Home Visit, Indoor
Programme
5/08
1
Evaluate the
application of C.A.R in
volunteer service
Evaluation
Research Result Demonstration

The mean score of domain ( 10 is the highest, 1 is the lowest)
The mean score of C.A.R. domains
Research Result Demonstration

The mean score ( 10 is the highest, 1 is the lowest)
The mean score of the sub-domains of Responsiveness
10
1st Phase
7.4
9
8
7.58
2nd Phase
7.86
7.4
6.76
5.72
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Motivation
Action
Interaction
Research Result Demonstration
The correlation between C.A.R. and Caring Index
CAR
CAR
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Responsiveness
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Attentiveness
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Competence
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Caring Index
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
Responsiveness
Attentiveness
Competence
Caring Index
1
.870(**)
.899(**)
.903(**)
.461(*)
.
0
0
0
0.031
22
22
22
22
22
.870(**)
1
.647(**)
.700(**)
.485(*)
0
.
0.001
0
0.022
22
22
22
22
22
.899(**)
.647(**)
1
.725(**)
0.356
0
0.001
.
0
0.104
22
22
22
22
22
.903(**)
.700(**)
.725(**)
1
0.399
0
0
0
.
0.066
22
22
22
22
22
.461(*)
.485(*)
0.356
0.399
1
0.031
0.022
0.104
0.066
.
22
22
22
22
22
Conclusion
Community-wide Indicator
 Service Pointer
 Enhances programme design
