Soul of the Community — Ft. Wayne, IN – MSA September 2009

Soul of the Community — Ft. Wayne, IN – MSASeptember 2009

2

Copyright Standards

Copyright © 2009 Gallup, Inc. All rights reserved.

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.

Agenda

Methodology and Area Included for This Community Community Attachment Overview Overall Measures of Biggest Problem and Life Evaluation The Drivers of Community Attachment Ratings on Domains of Community Attachment Recommendations on Focus Areas and Groups CA by Demographic Groups Driving Community Changes Appendix (Survey Items, Community Lists, Key Terms)

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

Note: Speaking and discussion points are included in the notes section of many slides

4

Why Community Attachment?

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.


5

Methodology

Sampling U.S. Census geography — Core-Based-Statistical Areas (area geographies

appear in the Appendix)– Ft. Wayne, IN – Metropolitan Statistical Area

Random-Digit-Dial (RDD) sample of households in each of the 26 Knight Foundation Communities

Interviewing Telephone interview with 400 randomly identified adults aged 18+ Interviewing dates: February 17 through April 25, 2009

Weighting Data were weighted in each community to reflect U.S. adult population by age,

gender, race, and ethnicity. Communities were put into their correct proportion based on total adult population.


6

Knight Foundation Communities

*Oversampled communities


Aberdeen, SD – µSA Akron, OH* – MSA Biloxi, MS – MSA Boulder, CO – MSA Bradenton, FL – MSA Charlotte, NC* – MSA Columbia, SC – MSA Columbus, GA – MSA Detroit, MI* – MSA Duluth, MN – MSA Fort Wayne, IN – MSA Gary, IN – MD

Grand Forks, ND – MSA Lexington, KY – MSA City of Long Beach, CA Macon, GA – MSA Miami, FL – MD Milledgeville, GA – µSA Myrtle Beach, SC – MSA Palm Beach, FL – MD Philadelphia, PA – MD San Jose, CA – MSA St. Paul, MN – MSA State College, PA – MSA Tallahassee, FL – MSA Wichita, KS – MSA

Knight Foundation Communities

7

Bradenton, FL - MSA

Fort Wayne, IN - MSA

Aberdeen, SD - µSA

Biloxi, MS - MSA

Duluth, MN - MSA

St. Paul, MN - MSA

Macon, GA - MSA

Milledgeville, GA - µSA

Myrtle Beach, SC - MSA Columbia, SC - MSA

State College, PA - MSA

Philadelphia, PA - MD

Lexington, KY - MSAWichita, KS - MSA

Miami, FL - MD

Palm Beach, FL - MD

Charlotte, NC - MSA

San Jose, CA - MSA

Detroit, MI - MSA

Gary, IN - MD

City of Long Beach, CA

Akron, OH - MSA

Boulder, CO - MSA

Very High Urban – Very Large Population

Very High Urban – Large Population

Very High Urban – Medium Population

High Urban – Medium Population

Medium/Low Urban – Medium/Low Population

LEGEND Tallahassee, FL - MSA

Columbus, GA - MSA

Grand Forks, ND - MSA


8

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).

1Very Large Population — Very High Urban

Detroit, MI – MSA; Philadelphia, PA – MD; Miami, FL – MD

2 Large Population — Very High Urban

St. Paul, MN – MSA; San Jose, CA – MSA; Palm Beach, FL – MD; Charlotte, NC – MSA

3 Medium Population —Very High Urban

Bradenton, FL – MSA; Akron, OH – MSA; Gary, IN – MD; City of Long Beach, CA; Boulder, CO – MSA

4 Medium Population —High Urban

Columbia, SC – MSA; Wichita, KS – MSA; Lexington, KY – MSA; Tallahassee, FL – MSA; Columbus, GA – MSA

5 Medium/Low Population — Medium/Low Urban

Fort Wayne, IN – MSA; Duluth, MN – MSA; Macon, GA – MSA; Biloxi, MS – MSA; Grand Forks, ND – MSA; Myrtle Beach, SC – MSA; State College, PA – MSA; Milledgeville, GA – µSA; Aberdeen, SD – µSA


9

Key Terms

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 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.


10

Community Attachment

AttitudinalCA = Loyalty + Passion

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.

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.


+=

Community Attachment Attitudinal

LoyaltyPassion

11

Community DomainsGallup 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.

12

SATISFACTION

OUTLOOK

RECOMMEND

PRIDE

PERFECT PLACE

Community Attachment Model

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.

CA Domains(Outcome) (Levers)

(Attitudinal Loyalty) (Passion)


COMMUNITY OFFERINGSBasic Services Leadership Education

Safety Social Offerings Aesthetics Economy

SOCIAL CAPITAL

CIVICINVOLVEMENT

EMOTIONALWELLNESSOPENNESS

Citizen Perception of Most Important Problem Facing Community Today

Three Responses Allowed

13

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

Most Important Problem Facing Community


Ft. Wayne, IN - MSA

Knight Comparison Group 5: Fort Wayne, IN – MSA; Duluth, MN – MSA; Macon, GA – MSA; Biloxi, MS – MSA; Grand Forks, ND – MSA; Myrtle Beach, SC – MSA; State College, PA – MSA; Milledgeville, GA – µSA; Aberdeen, SD – µSA

Knight Communities Life Evaluation

14

Gallup asks a nationally representative cross section of 1,000 U.S. adults about their life evaluation each day. This allows us to compare Knight Communities to the U.S. overall.


Ft. Wayne, IN - MSA has lower levels of life evaluation than the Comparison Group.

Ft. Wayne, IN - MSA


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

15

Attachment Matters to Knight Communities

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

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.

16

Community Attachment Groups

Highly loyal and connected to the community(CA Mean 4.50+)

Lack full loyalty and passion but see some positive aspects of community (CA Mean 3.50-4.49)Unhappy with the community, its services and offerings, and likely to leave if they can (CA Mean <3.50)

CA Mean: 3.56 3.58 3.77 3.73 3.60 3.64

Attached


Neutral

Not Attached

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

Ft. Wayne, IN - MSA


The Fort Wayne area continues to have lower CA than the Comparison Group and now rates similarly to Knight Communities Overall.

17

Community Attachment Within Comparison CommunitiesLarge range in CA within Knight Groups

Low/Medium Population – Low/Medium Urbanicity



CA Mean:3.60 3.64 3.49 3.22 3.89 3.79 3.65 3.69 3.89 3.87 3.84 3.91 3.80 4.03 3.90 4.00 3.96 3.87 3.77 3.73 3.56 3.58

Ft. Wayne, IN - MSA


2008 2009

0.554 0.575

0.467 0.514

0.451 0.513

0.466 0.470

0.454 0.433

0.388 0.426

0.378 0.339

0.338 0.321

0.136 0.190

0.162 0.168

0.056 0.017

18

Key Attachment Drivers

Economy

Social Offerings

Emotional Wellness

Aesthetics

Civic Involvement

Social Capital

Education

Safety

Basic Services

Leadership


Drivers remained consistent year-over-year

Openness

The correlations of Domains to CA indicate the relative importance of each to overall Community Attachment. The domains are listed in order of strength.


(Medium/Low Population

—Medium/Low Urban)

Ft. Wayne, IN - MSA

Medium/Low Population — Medium/Low Urban: Fort Wayne, IN – MSA; Duluth, MN – MSA; Macon, GA – MSA; Biloxi, MS – MSA; Grand Forks, ND – MSA; Myrtle Beach, SC – MSA; State College, PA – MSA; Milledgeville, GA – µSA; Aberdeen, SD – µSA

Strengths-Weaknesses Opportunity Map

19

Community Aesthetics, Basic Services, and Education are strengths for Ft. Wayne that can be leveraged. Openness, Social Offerings, and Leadership offer the greatest areas for improvement to encourage attachment.


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.

Aesthetics 2008

Basic Services 2008Economy 2008

Education 2008

Civic Involvement 2008

Leadership 2008 Openness 2008

Safety 2008 Social Capital 2008

Social Offerings 2008

Emotional Wellness 2008

Aesthetics 2009

Basic Services 2009

Economy 2009

Education 2009

Civic Involvement 2009

Leadership 2009

Openness 2009

Safety 2009Social Capital 2009

Social Offerings 2009

Emotional Wellness 2009

0.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

0.60

1.35 1.45 1.55 1.65 1.75 1.85 1.95 2.05 2.15 2.25

StrengthCritical Opportunity

Performance (Mean Rating)

Imp

ort

ance

(C

orr

elat

ion

Wit

h A

ttac

hm

ent)

2009

2008

Ft. Wayne, IN - MSA

Community Offerings– Aesthetics– Basic Services– Economy– Education– Leadership– Safety– Social Offerings

Openness Emotional Wellness Social Capital Civic Involvement


Citizen Ratings on the Domains

Ft. Wayne, IN - MSA

Citizens’ connectedness to their communities has improved slightly as the economy has worsened.

21

Community Offerings Sub-Domains


Overall CA



Like all communities, Ft. Wayne experienced a large drop in the Economy domain while the Civic Involvement domain increased since 2008.

Ft. Wayne, IN - MSA


The structural, physical, and social offerings a community presents — without basic services, citizens can’t thrive.

22

Community Offerings

Community Offerings Sub-Domains


Overall Community Offerings


Views of the local community Economy and local Leadership declined significantly; the overall Community Offerings rating remained below the Comparison Group.

Ft. Wayne, IN - MSA


The physical beauty and availability of parks and green spaces for residents

23

Community Offerings Aesthetics


Overall Aesthetics


Citizens’ views of Ft. Wayne’s overall Aesthetics are unchanged from 2008, and the Total Community continues to have lower ratings than the Comparison Group and Knight Communities Overall.

Ft. Wayne, IN - MSA


Infrastructure supports such as highways, housing, and healthcare

24

Community Offerings Basic Services


Overall Basic Services


Citizens’ ratings of Ft. Wayne’s overall Basic Services remain higher than the Comparison Group and Knight Communities Overall in 2009. The area’s lowest ratings are on its highway and freeway system.

Ft. Wayne, IN - MSA


The local economic and employment conditions

25

Community Offerings Economy


Overall Economy


Perceptions of the Ft. Wayne Economy are much lower than in 2008, and Ft. Wayne continues to have lower ratings than the Comparison Group and Knight Communities Overall.

Ft. Wayne, IN - MSA


The quality of K-12 and colleges/universities in the community

26

Community OfferingsEducation


Overall Education


Ft. Wayne citizens rate local colleges and universities relatively highly, but rate public schools poorly, resulting in an overall Education domain that is below the Comparison Group and Knight Communities Overall.

Ft. Wayne, IN - MSA


The leadership and alignment of views of elected officials with citizens

27

Community Offerings Leadership


Overall Leadership


Citizens rate Ft. Wayne’s Leadership significantly lower in 2009: Opinions of city leaders have fallen as well as the perception that leaders in the community represent the interests of citizens.

Ft. Wayne, IN - MSA


The local area crime and safety conditions

28

Community OfferingsSafety


Overall Safety


Ft. Wayne citizens continue to feel safer around their homes than in the community at large.

Ft. Wayne, IN - MSA


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

29

Community Offerings Social Offerings


Overall Social Offerings


Ft. Wayne’s overall Social Offerings rating continues to remain below the Comparison Group and Knight Communities Overall. The lowest rated aspect is people caring about each other.

Ft. Wayne, IN - MSA


How welcoming the community is to different types of people

30

Community Good For…


Overall Openness

Openness


Citizens continue to view Ft. Wayne as a poor place for gays/lesbians and for young, talented college graduates, but see it as welcoming to families with young children.

Ft. Wayne, IN - MSA



The mixture of mental and physical well-being items. The metric is an overall measure of personal and community well-being.

Overall Emotional Wellness

Emotional Wellness


Citizens in Ft. Wayne report a similar level of Emotional Wellness in 2009, yet the overall measure is slightly below the Comparison Group and Knight Communities Overall.

Ft. Wayne, IN - MSA


The people-connections citizens have to each other


Overall Social Captial

Social Capital


Ft. Wayne has relatively high Social Capital, above the Comparison Group and Knight Communities Overall. Citizens spent significantly more time with neighbors in 2009, and have many family members in the area.

Ft. Wayne, IN - MSA


What residents give to the community in terms of civic involvement


As found in all communities, Ft. Wayne shows an increase in voting behavior due to the presidential election in Fall 2008. Ft. Wayne also experienced a significant increase in local volunteering since 2008.

Overall Civic Involvement

Civic Involvement


Ft. Wayne, IN - MSA


Ft. Wayne, IN – MSA Community Attachment by Demographic Groups


Profile of Most Attached Citizens

The next section details findings by key demographic groups. This type of analysis can help community leaders pinpoint populations to target.

Citizens Most Likely To Be Attached– 65 years of age or older– Widowed– Employed part-time or retired– Mid-income residents ($45,000-74,999)

Citizens Least Likely To Be Attached– Renters– Single/never married– Some college education– Lived in community 6-19 years– Non-employed (includes laid-off, students, and homemakers)


Ft. Wayne, IN - MSA

Younger residents are generally less attached to the community

36

CA by Citizen Age



Ft. Wayne, IN - MSA

Residents with some college education are generally less attached to the community than those with higher or lower educational attainment

37

CA by Educational Attainment



Ft. Wayne, IN - MSA

Widowed residents are generally more attached to the community

38

CA by Marital Status



Ft. Wayne, IN - MSA

Homeowners are more attached to the community than renters

39

CA by Home Ownership



Ft. Wayne, IN - MSA

Long-term residents are generally more attached to the community

40

CA by Years Lived in Community



Ft. Wayne, IN - MSA

na

na = sample size <30

Retired residents and part-time employees are generally more attached to the community

41

CA by Employment Status



Ft. Wayne, IN - MSA

Little difference to community attachment by type of area within the community

42

CA by Community Area Type



Ft. Wayne, IN - MSA

Mid-income residents continue to be most attached to the community

43

CA by Total Household Income



Ft. Wayne, IN - MSA

44

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


KnightCommunities

Overall

Connect students with businesses while in school through internships, community ties, problem solving, etc.

46

Good schools is a relative strength for most communities, but once they partake of the educational opportunities, many students plan to leave the state.


While Educational Opportunities Draw Students — Communities Need to Focus on Keeping Them

Vocalize/promote future efforts and goals. Host seminars on area vision. Involve citizens to plan, drive, and share visions.

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

Pe

rce

ptio

n o

f W

ha

t C

om

mu

nity

Will

Be

Lik

e t

o L

ive

in

5 Y

ea

rs F

rom

No

w


47

High Job Satisfaction Plays Role in Community Attachment

Ov

era

ll S

ati

sfa

cti

on

Wit

h C

urr

en

t J

ob

48

The more satisfied employed adults are with their current company, the more likely they are to be attached to their community.


Work with business to learn how to better engage employees (e.g., host seminar on engaging employees, job swapping by local business, etc.).

49

Communities Have Opportunity to Build Attachment With Newer CitizensLifelong residents are significantly less attached than shorter-term residents, particularly in the largest urban communities — may feel they don’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 introduce them to the benefits of the community.

50

Early- to Mid-Career Citizens Are Least Attached to Their Communities

Re

sp

on

de

nt

Ag

e

Find opportunities to connect early- to mid-career hires into community through events, sponsorships, and volunteering.

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.


Appendix


52

Question/Reporting Scales

Construct Q Number Question Wording Original Scale Low Medium HighCOMMUNITY LOYALTY

Q1 Overall satisfaction with community

5-point satisfaction 1-3 4 5

Q2 Likely to recommend community to others

5-point likelihood 1-3 4 5

Q6a Outlook for community 5 years from now

5-point much better to much worse

PASSIONQ3-B Perfect community for

people like me5-point agreement 1-3 4 5

Q3-A Proud to live in community 5-point agreement 1-3 4 5


Question/Reporting Scales(continued)


Construct Q Number Question Wording Original Scale Low Medium High

COMMUNITY OFFERINGS

Basic Services Q7-C Highway and freeway system 5-point very good to very bad 1-3 4 5Q7-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 5Leadership Q15a-B Community leaders represent my

interests5-point agreement 1-3 4 5

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 5Q7-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 5Q18 Safe to walk within 1 mile of home 5-point completely safe to not

at all safe1-3 4 5

Aesthetics Q7-A Parks, playgrounds, and trails 5-point very good to very bad 1-3 4 5Q7-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 5Q10 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 go

worse same better

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 5Social Offerings Q7-H Vibrant nightlife 5-point very good to very bad 1-3 4 5

Q7-I Good place to meet people and make friends

5-point very good to very bad 1-3 4 5

Q7-M Other people care about each other 5-point very good to very bad 1-3 4 5

54

Question/Reporting Scales (continued)Construct Q Number Question Wording Original Scale Low Medium HighCIVIC INVOLVEMENT

Q22-A Volunteer 2-point yes/no no yesQ22-C Voted in local election 2-point yes/no no yesQ22-B Attend local community meetings 2-point yes/no no yesQ22-D Work with residents to make

change2-point yes/no no yes

OPENNESSQ8-F Good place for senior citizens 5-point very good to very bad 1-3 4 5Q8-C Good place for racial and ethnic

minorities5-point very good to very bad 1-3 4 5

Q8-D Good place for families with kids 5-point very good to very bad 1-3 4 5Q8-E Good place for gays/lesbians 5-point very good to very bad 1-3 4 5Q8-A Good place for talented college

graduates5-point very good to very bad 1-3 4 5

Q8-B Good place for immigrants from other countries

5-point very good to very bad 1-3 4 5

SOCIAL CAPITALQ23 Belong to formal/informal

groups/clubs8-point 0 to 7+ groups 0 1-2 3+

Q26 Spend time with neighbors 7-point never to about every day

Once year or

less

Several times

wk/dailyQ24 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+


55

Question/Reporting Scales (continued)Construct Q Number Question Wording Original Scale Low Medium HighEMOTIONAL WELLNESS

Q16-A In my community I am treated with respect

5-point strongly agree to strongly disagree

1-3 4 5

Q16-B I felt well-rested yesterday 5-point strongly agree to strongly disagree

1-3 4 5

Q16-C I felt a high level of stress yesterday


3-5 2 1

Q16-D I learned or did something interesting yesterday


1-3 4 5


56

Community DefinitionsCommunity State Gallup Recommended Survey Geography:

CBSA (MSA/μSA)/CBSA Division

Long Beach CA City of Long Beach, CAZIP Codes: 90802, 90806, 90813, 90840, 90803, 90807, 90814, 90804, 90808, 90815, 90805, 90810, 90822

San Jose CA San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, CA Metropolitan Statistical AreaSan Benito County, CA; Santa Clara County, CA

Boulder CO Boulder, CO Metropolitan Statistical AreaBoulder County, CO

Bradenton FL Sarasota-Bradenton-Venice, FL Metropolitan Statistical AreaManatee County, FL; Sarasota County, FL

Miami FL Miami-Miami Beach-Kendall, FL Metropolitan DivisionMiami-Dade County, FL

Palm Beach FL West Palm Beach-Boca Raton-Boynton Beach, FL Metropolitan DivisionPalm Beach County, FL

Tallahassee FL Tallahassee, FL Metropolitan Statistical AreaGadsden County, FL; Jefferson County, FL; Leon County, FL; Wakulla County, FL

Columbus GA-AL

Columbus, GA-AL Metropolitan Statistical AreaRussell County, AL; Chattahoochee County, GA; Harris County, GA; Marion County, GA; Muscogee County, GA

Macon GA Macon, GA Metropolitan Statistical AreaBibb County, GA; Crawford County, GA; Jones County, GA; Monroe County, GA; Twiggs County, GA

Milledgeville GA Milledgeville, GA Micropolitan Statistical AreaBaldwin County, GA; Hancock County, GA

Fort Wayne IN Fort Wayne, IN Metropolitan Statistical AreaAllen County, IN; Wells County, IN; Whitley County, IN


57

Community Definitions (continued)

Community State Gallup Recommended Survey Geography:CBSA (MSA/μSA)/CBSA Division

Gary IN Gary, IN Metropolitan DivisionJasper County, IN; Lake County, IN; Newton County, IN; Porter County, IN

Wichita KS Wichita, KS Metropolitan Statistical AreaButler County, KS; Harvey County, KS; Sedgwick County, KS; Sumner County, KS

Lexington KY Lexington-Fayette, KY Metropolitan Statistical AreaBourbon County, KY; Clark County, KY; Fayette County, KY; Jessamine County, KY; Scott County, KY; Woodford County, KY

Detroit MI Detroit-Warren-Livonia, MI Metropolitan Statistical AreaLapeer County, MI; Livingston County, MI; Macomb County, MI; Oakland County, MI; St. Clair County, MI; Wayne County, MI

Duluth MN Duluth, MN-WI Metropolitan Statistical AreaCarlton County, MN; St. Louis County, MN; Douglas County, WI

St. Paul MN Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN-WI Metropolitan Statistical AreaAnoka County, MN; Carver County, MN; Chisago County, MN; Dakota County, MN; Hennepin County, MN; Isanti County, MN; Ramsey County, MN; Scott County, MN; Sherburne County, MN; Washington County, MN; Wright County, MN; Pierce County, WI; St. Croix County, WI

Biloxi MS Gulfport-Biloxi, MS Metropolitan Statistical AreaHancock County, MS; Harrison County, MS; Stone County, MS

Charlotte NC Charlotte-Gastonia-Concord, NC-SC Metropolitan Statistical AreaAnson County, NC; Cabarrus County, NC; Gaston County, NC; Mecklenburg County, NC; Union County, NC; York County, SC

Grand Forks

ND Grand Forks, ND-MN Metropolitan Statistical AreaPolk County, MN; Grand Forks County, ND


58

Community Definitions (continued)

Community State Gallup Recommended Survey Geography:CBSA (MSA/μSA)/CBSA Division

Akron OH Akron, OH Metropolitan Statistical AreaPortage County, OH; Summit County, OH

Philadelphia

PA Philadelphia, PA Metropolitan DivisionBucks County, PA; Chester County, PA; Delaware County, PA; Montgomery County, PA; Philadelphia County, PA

State College

PA State College, PA Metropolitan Statistical AreaCentre County, PA

Columbia SC Columbia, SC Metropolitan Statistical AreaCalhoun County, SC; Fairfield County, SC; Kershaw County, SC; Lexington County, SC; Richland County, SC; Saluda County, SC

Myrtle Beach

SC Myrtle Beach-Conway-North Myrtle Beach, SC Metropolitan Statistical AreaHorry County, SC

Aberdeen SD Aberdeen, SD Micropolitan Statistical AreaBrown County, SD; Edmunds County, SD


Documents

Soul of the Community — Ft. Wayne, IN – MSA September 2009