Scottish Government

CHAPTER THREE NEIGHBOURHOOD CHANGES

Neighbourhood problems

3.1 Respondents were asked at Waves 1 and 3 to identify problems in their neighbourhood from a list of 23 items. We divided these into 2 groups: infrastructure, services and environmental issues; and crime and anti-social behaviour issues. In each case we computed a Neighbourhood Problem Load Index that ranges from 0 (no items are a problem) to 100 (all items are serious problems), with serious problems counting for twice the weight of minor problems. Using these indices, which summarise the overall position regarding neighbourhood conditions, we can compare the change in overall conditions as assessed by residents across 3 groups of respondent ⁷:

Relocators: People who moved to a new-build dwelling in a new neighbourhood, comprising 25.3% of the Wave 3 sample.

Movers: People who moved to a new-build dwelling in the same neighbourhood where they previously lived, comprising 23.7% of the Wave 3 sample.

Remainers: People who remained in the same dwelling over time, comprising 51.0% of the Wave 3 sample.

Problems of infrastructure, services & environment

3.2 The following 12 items were included in the Index of Neighbourhood Infrastructure, Services and Environmental Problems:

• Security level of houses, closes, courts and gardens
• Level of police presence / response speed
• General appearance of the area
• Air quality / pollution
• Adequate street lighting
• Noise, e.g., factories, traffic, shouting
• Speeding traffic / amount of traffic
• Uneven / dangerous pavements
• Public transport services
• Safe children's play areas
• Facilities for teenagers and young people
• Reputation of the area.

3.3 Neighbourhood infrastructure, services and environmental problems as a whole reduced significantly overall (p < 0.001) (Table 3.1). There was a reduction of around a fifth for those who had moved house and neighbourhood, by nearly a quarter for those who moved house only, and by a tenth amongst those people remaining in the same house and neighbourhood, although we can only conclude that the difference in the reduction was significant between the Movers and Remainers (p < 0.01). Thus, being rehoused at least doubled the perceived improvement in neighbourhood conditions compared to people who were not rehoused. However, moving within the same, familiar area, delivered the most gain in perceptions of the local environment.

Table 3.1 Change in neighbourhood infrastructure, services and environmental problems

Note to table: Base: Longitudinal sample (n = 545).

3.4 We can also examine changes in the responses to individual items within this group of neighbourhood problems. For this, a change score was computed for each respondent, with the following table showing the mean change per person in each of the 3 location groups; the score can range from +2 (problem getting much worse) to -2 (problem getting much better).

3.5 For all but one item, neighbourhood problems were significantly reduced from Wave 1 to Wave 3 (see the fifth column of Table 3.2). The magnitude of the change was greater for the rehousing groups (Relocators and Movers) than for the Remainer group with respect to 9 of the 12 items (although not all of these differences were significant - see last column of Table 3.2). The exceptions to this were noise, safe children's play areas and facilities for teenagers and young people, in which the changes were indistinguishable between the 3 groups ⁸. The biggest gains for the Relocator and Mover groups were in relation to the general appearance of the area, policing services, and pavement safety.

Table 3.2 Mean change scores for neighbourhood infrastructure, services and environmental problems by location group

Note to table: Base: Longitudinal sample. Change score is based on response codes of 0 (not a problem), 1 (minor problem) and 2 (serious problem) so moving from serious problem to not a problem equates to a change score of -2.

Problems of crime and anti-social behaviour

3.6 The following 11 items were included in the Index of Neighbourhood Crime and Anti-social Behaviour Problems:

• Disturbance by children or youngsters
• Vandalism / graffiti
• Litter and rubbish
• Assaults or muggings
• Burglaries
• People drinking alcohol in public places
• Nuisance from dogs
• People hanging around
• Drug dealing / taking
• The people around here
• Domestic abuse.

3.7 The pattern of change in neighbourhood crime and anti-social behaviour problems was very similar to that for infrastructure and environmental problems. Crime and anti-social behaviours reduced significantly overall (p < 0.001). For the 2 residential change groups, Relocators and Movers, crime and anti-social behaviour problems were reduced by just over a quarter, this being double the reduction experienced by Remainers, as shown in Table 3.3.

Table 3.3 Change in neighbourhood crime and anti-social behaviour problems

Note to table: Base: Longitudinal sample.

3.8 Again, we can examine change in individual items within the index. Eight of the 11 aspects of neighbourhood crime and anti-social behaviour were reported to have significantly improved in general between Wave 1 and Wave 3 (p < 0.001). Only the less specifically defined items of disturbance by children and the "people round here", and the sensitive matter of domestic abuse showed no significant change. For almost all items, improvements were much greater for those rehoused than for Remainers; 3 items where the gains were similar across all 3 groups were in relation to disturbance by young people, nuisance from dogs, and domestic abuse. Disturbance by young people became slightly, but not significantly, worse for the group who relocated (p < 0.290).

Table 3.4 Mean change scores for neighbourhood crime and anti-social behaviour problems by location group

Note to table: Base: Longitudinal sample. Change score is based on response codes of 0 (not a problem), 1 (minor problem) and 2 (serious problem) so, for example, moving from serious problem to not a problem equates to a change score of -2.

3.9 The greatest benefits for people who were rehoused came in relation to problems of vandalism/graffiti and drug taking/dealing. These significantly improved in comparison to the Remainers (p < 0.001 and p <0.01, respectively). There were also marked improvements for the Relocator and Movers groups in relation to assaults and people hanging around (unlike in the Remainer groups; p ² 0.05). Although the mean reductions in problems of litter and rubbish and in burglaries were twice as high for those rehoused as for Remainers, these differences were not statistically significant (p = 0.120 and p = 0.090, respectively).

Neighbour disputes

3.10 There was a slight increase over time in the proportion of those people rehoused who were involved in neighbour disputes (Table 3.5). Settling into a new home may therefore have brought problems of getting along with the neighbours for a significant minority of residents. Prior to rehousing 18% of the Intervention Group had been involved in a neighbour dispute in the previous year; by Wave 3 this had risen to 20%, some 2 years after rehousing. The rate of incidence was highest at both times among the Relocators (those who moved neighbourhood) than among the Movers (who only moved house). Thus, relocation was marginally more common for those involved in neighbour disputes. Over time there was a slight reduction in the incidence of neighbour disputes among the Remainers.

Table 3.5 Incidence of neighbour disputes by location group (percentages)

Note to table: Base: Cross-sectional sample.

3.11 The most common type of neighbour dispute after rehousing (Table 3.6) related to the behaviour of children or teenagers, with one-in-ten of those rehoused having been involved in a dispute along these lines. Other relatively common types of dispute related to verbal abuse (6.5%), domestic noise (4.6%) and noisy parties (4.2%). The proportion of Intervention respondents citing all dispute items decreased slightly over time, except in the cases of children and teenagers and cars or parking, which both increased by at least 2%. Nevertheless, the generally low incidence of each type of neighbour dispute at both Waves means that the differences before and after rehousing are not statistically significant, except for the decreases in domestic noise (p = 0.015) and noisy parties (p = 0.045)

Table 3.6 Incidence of types of neighbour disputes in Intervention Group (percentages)

Note to table: Base: Cross-sectional sample.

Neighbourhood improvements

3.12 The Intervention and Control Groups were asked at both Waves whether 17 aspects of local amenities, infrastructure and attitudes towards neighbourhood-related matters had improved recently. Within the Intervention Group, Movers reported significantly more improved items at both Waves than did Relocators (p = 0.008) (Table 3.7). The average number of items considered to have improved after rehousing was slightly lower for both groups, although this was not significant (p = 0.179). Improvements were more often cited by Movers than Relocators for the majority of items (14 at Wave 1 and 8 at Wave 3). This perhaps reflects the Movers' longer-term knowledge of their neighbourhood, while Relocators may have been less able to judge whether improvements had occurred in the time they had been living in their new accommodation. Movers more frequently reported improvements at Wave 3 than at Wave 1 for all aspects investigated, while Relocators only reported more improvements after their move than before in relation to 6 items.

Table 3.7 Average number of recent improvements in neighbourhood amenities, infrastructure and attitudes for Intervention Group

3.13 Training and access to computers were the items most widely considered to have improved (at least half of respondents of each relocation group at both Waves) - see Table 3.8. Within the Intervention Group at Wave 3, there were 2 aspects of neighbourhood improvement identified around twice as often by those who moved house but not area - people's belief that they can change things and the image of the area. This may indicate that people who move house within the same area more readily identify psychosocial improvements. Those who move neighbourhood are more likely to identify improvements in local services: this was true at Wave 3 in relation to shops, recreation facilities, transport links, and medical facilities.

Table 3.8 Recent improvements in neighbourhood amenities, infrastructure and attitudes (percentages) for Intervention Group

Note to table: Base: Longitudinal sample.

Summary

This chapter has examined changes in the identification of neighbourhood problems and improvements over time. Our key findings were:

• Neighbourhood infrastructure, services and environmental problems fell by over twice as much among the Intervention Group over time compared with the Control Group. For Movers, problems fell by 24% and for Relocators by 19%. The biggest gains for the Intervention Group were in relation to area appearance, policing and pavement safety.
• Neighbourhood crime and anti-social behaviour problems fell by two-and-a-half times as much among the Intervention Group over time compared with the Control Group. For Movers, problems fell by 28% and for Relocators by 26%. The biggest gains for the Intervention Group were in relation to vandalism/graffiti and drug dealing/taking.
• Larger reductions in neighbourhood problems were identified by those who moved within the same area than by those who were relocated, perhaps reflecting their greater familiarity with change over time within the area.
• Neighbour disputes were higher among the Intervention Group at both Waves; the rate of dispute increased slightly over time among the Intervention Group whilst falling slightly among the Control Group. Relocators had by far the highest rate of dispute: at Wave 3, after rehousing, one-in-four of those rehoused to a different neighbourhood had been involved in a neighbour dispute in the past year. Thus, whilst settling into a new home and area may make people more vulnerable to this type of dispute, Relocators appear to have already been more disposed to such disagreements.

• Recent improvements to the local neighbourhood are more likely to be cited by those people rehoused within the same area than by those relocated. Those people who moved within the same area are much more likely to cite psychosocial improvements in the area, whilst those people relocated are much more likely to cite improvements to local services.