Indicator SC.1.i Social support reported by San Francisco population

Proportion of population reporting different levels of social support, by poverty level (2003)
  0-99% Federal Poverty Level 100-199% Federal Poverty Level 200-299% Federal Poverty Level 300% Federal Poverty Level and above San Francisco total
Availability of others for understanding problems  
No one is available 19% 14% 10%* 5% 8%
Someone is available a little 7%* 7%* 11%* 6% 7%
Someone is sometimes available 29% 24% 22% 16% 20%
Someone is mostly available 26% 26% 34% 34% 32%
Someone is always available 19% 29% 23% 40% 34%
Availability of someone to help with daily chores when sick  
No one is available 39% 34% 23% 22% 26%
Someone is available a little 19% 12%* 16%* 9% 12%
Someone is sometimes available 20% 18% 18% 16% 17%
Someone is mostly available 9%* 13% 19% 18% 16%
Someone is always available 14% 23% 24% 35% 29%
Availability of someone who loves you and makes you feel wanted  
No one is available 11%* 10%* 8%* 4% 6%
Someone is available a little 5%* 10%* 11%* 3% 5%
Someone is sometimes available 23% 20% 17%* 12% 15%
Someone is mostly available 30% 20% 37% 23% 25%
Someone is always available 32% 40% 27% 58% 49%
Availability of others for relaxation purposes  
No one is available 10%* 12% 1%* 4% 5%
Someone is available a little 18% 15% 17% 5% 10%
Someone is sometimes available 35% 30% 26% 21% 24%
Someone is mostly available 22% 19% 32% 37% 32%
Someone is always available 16% 23% 23% 33% 29%
* Numbers with an asterisk are statistically unstable because of small sample size and/or having exceeded an acceptable value for coefficient of variance. Caution is advised when using these numbers publicly.
Proportion of population reporting different levels of social support (2003)
  San Francisco Bay Area California
Availability of others for understanding problems  
No one is available 8% 6% 6%
Someone is available a little 7% 7% 7%
Someone is sometimes available 20% 17% 17%
Someone is mostly available 32% 29% 27%
Someone is always available 34% 42% 43%
Availability of someone to help with daily chores when sick  
No one is available 26% 18% 18%
Someone is available a little 12% 10% 10%
Someone is sometimes available 17% 18% 18%
Someone is mostly available 16% 22% 21%
Someone is always available 29% 32% 33%
Availability of someone who loves you and makes you feel wanted  
No one is available 6% 4% 4%
Someone is available a little 5% 5% 5%
Someone is sometimes available 15% 12% 11%
Someone is mostly available 25% 24% 22%
Someone is always available 49% 56% 58%
Availability of others for relaxation purposes  
No one is available 5% 4% 5%
Someone is available a little 10% 9% 9%
Someone is sometimes available 24% 23% 24%
Someone is mostly available 32% 34% 32%
Someone is always available 29% 30% 30%

Data Source

Data gathered from California Health Interview Survey website. Available online at:
http://www.chis.ucla.edu/get-data.html.

Explanation and Limitations

Social support can be described as emotional, financial, informational, or other help that people obtain from others with whom they have social relationships.a

This indicator represents the answers given by a sample of San Francisco residents aged 18 or over to questions measuring the social support they receive. Data were obtained through the 2003 California Health Interview Survey (CHIS), a random-digit dial telephone survey of households drawn from every county in California. The CHIS sample is representative of the state's non-institutionalized population living in households. The CHIS is conducted every two years, with many core questions repeated in each survey for measuring significant shifts over time. As of September 2009, the questions used for this indicator have only been included in the 2003 survey. About 900 San Francisco residents answered the questions.

To gather the information presented above, the CHIS interviewers asked the following four questions to adults aged 18 and older:

"How often is someone available to understand your problems?"
"How often is someone available to help with daily chores if you are sick?"
"How often is someone available to love you and make you feel wanted?"
"How often is someone available to get together with for relaxation?"

For each question, respondents were given a choice of the following five answers:

No one is available
Someone is available a little
Someone is sometimes available
Someone is mostly available
Someone is always available

Racial/ethnic demographic information is based on the 2000 U.S. Census categories. Surveys were conducted in English, Spanish, Chinese (Mandarin and Cantonese dialects), Vietnamese, and Korean. The Bay Area includes Alameda, Contra Costa, San Francisco, Marin, Napa, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Solano, and Sonoma counties. For more information, please visit the CHIS website at: http://www.chis.ucla.edu/get-data.html..

There are many different possible sources of social support, including family, friends, neighbors, coworkers, and other community members. It is not possible to know from the information above which sources of support the respondents were referring to, or whether these sources were also San Francisco residents. It is also not possible to compare the responses of populations living in different areas of the city.

The characteristics of the survey respondents may not perfectly match the characteristics of the general population, and reports of social support can vary by gender, age, poverty level, and other demographic characteristics. Although respondents' responses to survey questions were weighted to better represent the demographic characteristics of the population as a whole, the results shown in this indicator may not be representative of all members of the population.

Besides demographic characteristics, there are many reasons why different people may have answered the questions differently. For example, different respondents may have interpreted the questions differently. The responses may also reflect respondents' differences in the types of social support they value most or in how much they value social support as a whole.

Social cohesion is not a time-static concept; movement of residents, organizations, and businesses into and out of a community can impact the social dynamics among neighbors and other components of social cohesion. While this indicator provides a snapshot of one aspect of social cohesion, it does not provide any information about long-term trends.

Residents' reports of social support represent one among many possible indicators of social cohesion. Taken alone, the fact that residents report having a lot of social support available does not necessarily mean that a community is socially cohesive. Similarly, it is possible for a community to be socially cohesive even if its residents do not report in a survey that they have a lot of social support available.

Why is this a Community Health Indicator?

Healthy People 2010 asserts that the social environment—including interactions with family, friends, coworkers, and others in the community—has a "profound effect on individual health." b Social support can buffer people from the negative psychological effects of life stress.c One review of over 100 studies concluded that social support for pregnant women improves fetal growth.d Other studies have found women who receive social support have healthier babies, fewer complications in pregnancy and birth, and less postpartum depression.e Emile Durkheim's work on suicide showed that the lowest rates of suicide occurred in societies with the highest degrees of social integration.f In Alameda County in 1979, researchers found that men and women who lacked ties to others were 1.9 to 3.1 times more likely to die during the follow-up period than those who had many contacts.g Other studies have linked specific health conditions—such as strokes, death from cardiovascular disease, and the common cold—to having fewer social ties.c,h  Neighborhoods in which residents feel social cohesiveness toward their neighbors (through mutual trust and exchanges of aid) tend to have lower mortality rates compared to neighborhoods that do not have strong social bonds.i

  1. Berkman LF. 1987. Assessing social networks and social support in epidemiologic studies. Revue d’épidémiologie et de santé publique 35(1):46-53.
  2. Healthy People 2010, Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Available at: http://www.healthypeople.gov/
  3. Cohen S, Underwood LG, Gottlieb BH, eds. 2000. Social Support Measurement and Intervention: A Guide for Health and Social Scientists. New York: Oxford University Press.
  4. Kawachi I, Colditz GA, Ascherio A, Rimm EB, Giovannucci E, Stampfer MJ, Willett WC. 1999. A Prospective study of social networks in relation to total mortality and cardiovascular disease incidence in men in the United States. Pp. 184-194 in The Society and Population Health Reader. Volume I: Income Inequality and Health, eds. I. Kawachi, BP Kennedy, RG Wilkinson. New York: The New Press.
  5. Berkman LF. 1999. The Role of social relations in health promotion. Pp. 172-183 in The Society and Population Health Reader. Volume I: Income Inequality and Health, eds. I. Kawachi, BP Kennedy, RG Wilkinson. New York: The New Press.
  6. Berkman LF, Kawachi I. 2000. A Historical Framework for Social Epidemiology. Chapter 1 in Social Epidemiology. New York: Oxford University Press.
  7. Berkman LF, Syme SL. 1979. Social networks, host resistance and mortality: a nine-year follow up study of Alameda County residents. American Journal of Epidemiology 109:186-204.
  8. Cohen C, Doyle WJ, Skoner DP, Rabin BS, Gwaltney JM. 1997. Social ties and susceptibility to the common cold. JAMA 277(24):1940-1944.

  9. Lochner KA, Kawachi I, Brennan RT, Buka SL. Social capital and neighborhood mortality rates in Chicago. Social Science & Medicine. 2003;56(8):1797-1805.