Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: April 29, 2024 Mon
Time: 8:43 pm
Time: 8:43 pm
Results for neighborhood safety
1 results foundAuthor: Kearns, Ade Title: SHARP Survey Findings: Social and Community Outcomes Summary: 1. The Scottish Health, Housing and Regeneration (SHARP) study is a longitudinal study of the health and social effects on tenants of moving into new-build socially rented housing. The primary aim was to investigate the impacts of being rehoused in new-build socially-rented property on housing conditions, neighbourhood and social outcomes, and the health and well-being of tenants. 2. Three waves of household surveys were conducted. Waves 1 and 3 involved face-to- face interviews with 334 households who had been rehoused (the Intervention Group) and 389 households who were not rehoused (the Control Group)1. Wave 2 was a postal survey involving only the Intervention Group. In addition, in-depth interviews were conducted with a small number of those people rehoused. The findings of the survey analysis are presented in a number of separate reports. This report presents the results relating to social and community outcomes. 3. Rehousing per se did not prompt an increase in the rate of usage of local amenities, which fell over time in both study groups. Relocation to a different neighbourhood appeared to stimulate local engagement since among this sub-group, the mean number of local optional amenities identified increased over time, and the mean number of local participations also increased compared to a reduction among those who were rehoused in the same area. On the other hand, moving from a flat to a house and acquiring a garden were associated with reductions in local participation, suggesting that such moves might result in changes in attitude to the local community, with less desire or need for forms of organised local engagement. 4. Rehousing did not impact negatively upon people’s social networks or sources of social support. There were no differences at Wave 3, or in terms of change over time, between the Intervention and Control Groups either in the size of their social networks, nor the range of forms of recent social contact. Furthermore, at both points in time, the majority of those rehoused would have recourse to local sources of social support in most situations. Neighbouring behaviours however increased over time in the Intervention Group compared with little or no change in the Control Group. Those rehoused were more likely by Wave 3 to engage in neighbouring behaviours than members of the Control Group, particularly to visit their neighbours homes; engagement with neighbours seems to be stimulated by rehousing in new developments. Moving neighbourhood as part of rehousing had no negative impacts upon social relations for the Intervention Group and may in fact have had a slight stimulating effect upon neighbouring behaviours. 5. Sense of community including belonging, cohesion and empowerment increased significantly over time. Thus, rehousing itself did not impact negatively on people’s sense of community: they either maintained or quickly developed their sense of community after moving house. Moving neighbourhood (relocation) had no effect upon the average change over time in sense of community. However, we cannot tell how many people had a prior familiarity with the neighbourhood they moved to, although the qualitative research indicates that quite a few ‘relocators’ moved to an area which they had prior experience of. 6. Sense of safety and of informal social control (collective efficacy) increased over time among the Intervention Group: safety rose by a fifth and collective efficacy by a tenth, although safety was lower to start with and still lower than collective efficacy by Wave 3. Whether or not people had moved neighbourhood made no difference to these outcomes. People moving out of flats gained more in terms of safety and collective efficacy than those moving out of houses, particularly if they moved into a house. However, informal social control had similarly risen in the Control Group; thus, we cannot say that rehousing itself boosted people’s sense of informal social control. However, we are able to say that moving house and moving neighbourhood had no detrimental effect upon people’s sense of safety and of informal social control, both of which improved despite moving, and possibly partly because of it. 7. Some aspects of community were rated higher in Social Inclusion Partnership (SIP) areas at Wave 1 (participation, belonging and empowerment) and other aspects were rated lower in SIP areas (safety, collective efficacy and cohesion). In relation to 2 aspects of community, change over time was significantly different in SIP areas than elsewhere: participation in organisations and clubs fell in SIP areas over time, compared to an increase elsewhere; whilst people’s sense of community cohesion (perceived trust, harmony and reciprocity among neighbours) increased three-fold in SIP areas compared to elsewhere. This latter finding may be related to the fact that across the entire Intervention Group, we found positive trends of association between identified neighbourhood improvements and people’s sense of cohesion, safety and collective efficacy. 8. Moving house and moving neighbourhood to some degree stimulate local engagement with neighbours and with local groups, so that the policy emphasis upon residential stability has to be tempered with the realisation that a degree of mobility within and between communities can have beneficial outcomes. However, it would be worth investigating whether these effects hold true for rehousing into existing housing as well as into newly built housing. 9. Privacy and quiet at home are important for individual well-being but also for perceptions of the community. Therefore, we would recommend a more comprehensive assessment of these outcomes across Scottish communities and an evaluation of the sufficiency of housing and neighbourhood management in this regard. Lastly, we would encourage further consideration of localised governance structures that give communities more involvement and influence over local area improvements and services, since these things are positively associated with people’s sense of security and community. Details: Edinburgh: Scottish Government Social Research, 2008. 48p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 7, 2013 at: http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/249200/0071708.pdf Year: 2008 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/249200/0071708.pdf Shelf Number: 129006 Keywords: Fear of CrimeHousingNeighborhood SafetyNeighborhoods and Crime (Scotland) |