Scout Research
Where a city gives people somewhere to be, together
217 cities ranked · 19,744 analyzed places · computed 8/27/2026 · score out of 100
This index is part of Scout's research thesis, The Science of a Fun Community. Version 1 weights are provisional and will be revised against resident survey data.
The research question
Most city rankings measure jobs, housing, restaurants, nightlife, or attractions. This index looks at something different: whether a city gives people places, activities, and repeated opportunities to spend time around other people outside home and work.
Scout measures the opportunity for community connection, not whether residents personally feel connected, happy, or friendly.
What a high score means
A high Community Connection score means a city provides many low-friction opportunities to gather, participate repeatedly, encounter other people, and spend time together.
What the index measures
Places built for spending time outside home and work, and venues where being around other people is part of the experience.
Dated events that pull people out of the house, and activities that repeat so the same faces show up again.
Whether gathering costs money, and whether the options fit different kinds of people rather than one demographic.
Headline result
The Scout Community Connection Index ranks 217 US cities on which cities actually provide social infrastructure, using 19,744 Scout-analyzed places and every published Scout outing. Phoenix leads at 77.6/100.
Rank #1 of 217 · 235 Scout places analyzed
78
Why this city scored this way
Phoenix ranks #1 of 217 overall at 78. Its strongest component is third place density (100, #1 of 217, versus a 98.5 average). Its weakest component is gathering opportunity at 84.3 (#146 of 217, average 83.4).
Rank #2 of 217 · 128 Scout places analyzed
77
Why this city scored this way
Scottsdale ranks #2 of 217 overall at 77. Its strongest component is third place density (100, #2 of 217, versus a 98.5 average). Its weakest component is recurring participation at 24.6 (#174 of 217, average 35.3).
Rank #3 of 217 · 57 Scout places analyzed
61
Why this city scored this way
Paradise Valley ranks #3 of 217 overall at 61. Its strongest component is recurring participation (45, #1 of 217, versus a 35.3 average). Its weakest component is accessible social life at 18.6 (#36 of 217, average 13).
Findings
Every observation below is computed from the ranked dataset on this page — component scores, ranks and measured gaps between cities.
01
In the Phoenix metro, Phoenix scores 78 while Mesa scores 30 — a 47.5-point gap between cities minutes apart. Weighted by its share of the index, community event activity explains more of that gap than any other component (100 vs 0).
217 cities ranked.
02
Plotted against Scout Variety Index, the two measures move together only loosely. Mesa sits above the median on Scout Variety Index but below it on this index, while Queen Creek does the reverse. A strong showing on one index does not carry over to the other.
Strong on both
Strong on Scout Variety Index, weaker here
Weaker on Scout Variety Index, strong here
217 cities ranked.
03
Paradise Valley leads on recurring participation at 45 against a 35.3 average across 217 ranked cities — 9.7 points above the mean. Opportunities that create repeat interaction rather than one-and-done tourism: leagues, classes, clubs, workshops and recurring markets. Repeat activity is what puts the same people in the same room more than once.
217 cities ranked.
04
Bridgeport, Sun City, Stockton post the highest accessible social life scores (32.5, 23.3, 22.3) versus a 13 average. Whether gathering requires spending money — free parks, libraries, free events and low typical spend across the social set.
Community cannot depend entirely on $75 nights out.
217 cities ranked.
05
Phoenix scores 78 — 22.8 points higher than the average city with a comparable amount of analyzed Scout inventory (235 places). Score is not a function of size: the median ranked city has 84 analyzed places.
Biggest overperformers
Strongest small-inventory cities
Best on third place density
Best on gathering opportunity
Best on community event activity
217 cities ranked.
Explore
Every component, side by side, with each city's strongest relative advantage.
Phoenix, AZ
78
Rank #1 · 235 places analyzed
Scottsdale, AZ
77
Rank #2 · 128 places analyzed
Phoenix's biggest advantage
Recurring participation
34.5 vs 24.6 (#138 vs #174)
Scottsdale's biggest advantage
Gathering opportunity
90 vs 84.3 (#32 vs #146)
Biggest difference
Recurring participation
9.9 point gap
Rankings
Search for any ranked city, filter by state, or expand the full table.
| Rank | City | Score |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Phoenix | 78 |
| 2 | Scottsdale | 77 |
| 3 | Paradise Valley | 61 |
| 4 | Anaheim | 61 |
| 5 | Stockton | 61 |
| 6 | St. Louis | 61 |
| 7 | Laredo | 61 |
| 8 | Henderson | 61 |
| 9 | Arlington | 61 |
| 10 | Bakersfield | 61 |
| 11 | Bellevue | 61 |
| 12 | Cincinnati | 60 |
| 13 | Columbus | 60 |
| 14 | Aurora | 60 |
| 15 | Sacramento | 60 |
| 16 | Long Beach | 60 |
| 17 | Raleigh | 60 |
| 18 | Greensboro | 60 |
| 19 | Hialeah | 60 |
| 20 | Salem | 60 |
By dimension
Component leaderboards explain why cities land where they do overall.
Places designed for spending time outside home and work — cafés, breweries, libraries, parks, plazas and community centers — measured per 100 published places.
Places where being around other people is inherent to the experience: markets, food halls, bowling, trivia, live music rooms and sports venues.
How often residents have a reason to gather — farmers markets, festivals, art walks, concerts and neighborhood events, counted as dated occurrences per 100 published places.
Opportunities that create repeat interaction rather than one-and-done tourism: leagues, classes, clubs, workshops and recurring markets.
Whether gathering requires spending money — free parks, libraries, free events and low typical spend across the social set.
Whether community opportunities exist for different kinds of people — families, couples, adults, kids, seniors, outdoor and hobby communities — measured as evenness across Scout's occasion and audience coverage.
Methodology
Scout computes The Scout Community Connection Index from its own database — verified places, published outings and bookable inventory. No third-party rankings, no editor's gut feel.
This edition covers 217 cities and 19,744 AI-analyzed places. A city is only ranked once at least 20 of its published places have completed Scout's place-intelligence analysis.
How the score is built
Third place density (25%): Places designed for spending time outside home and work — cafés, breweries, libraries, parks, plazas and community centers — measured per 100 published places.
Gathering opportunity (20%): Places where being around other people is inherent to the experience: markets, food halls, bowling, trivia, live music rooms and sports venues.
Community event activity (20%): How often residents have a reason to gather — farmers markets, festivals, art walks, concerts and neighborhood events, counted as dated occurrences per 100 published places.
Recurring participation (15%): Opportunities that create repeat interaction rather than one-and-done tourism: leagues, classes, clubs, workshops and recurring markets.
Accessible social life (10%): Whether gathering requires spending money — free parks, libraries, free events and low typical spend across the social set.
Social variety (10%): Whether community opportunities exist for different kinds of people — families, couples, adults, kids, seniors, outdoor and hobby communities — measured as evenness across Scout's occasion and audience coverage.
Where this sits in the framework
This index belongs to the Scout Hierarchy of Fun — Scout's own synthesis of leisure-satisfaction research, Self-Determination Theory, third-place research and work on collective effervescence. It is a Scout framework, not a restatement of Maslow: empirical work has repeatedly rejected the idea that human needs must be satisfied in strict sequence.
Version 1 weights are provisional
The component weights above are a stated starting point, not a claim of measured importance. Scout will revise them against resident survey responses to a single question — how easy is it to find something enjoyable to do in your city — and publish which dimensions actually predict perceived community fun.
Counts that could simply reward big cities are normalized: social infrastructure, events and bookable inventory are expressed per 100 published places, and variety measures use evenness rather than raw totals.
Scores are recomputed on every refresh, so a city's position moves as coverage deepens or as venues open and close. Underlying place data is verified against Google Places; outings are human- or AI-composed and reviewed before publishing.
Citing this study? Please credit Scout Places and link to this page.
This index measures
This index does not measure
Scores reflect the places, events and activity inventory present in the Scout dataset — not every business or activity that exists in a city. Density measures are normalized by a city's total published Scout places, so a city with thin Scout coverage is scored on the inventory Scout has analyzed. Coverage labels on this page describe Scout dataset completeness only; they are not statistical confidence intervals.