CHAPTER SEVEN OVERVIEW OF FINDINGS
Rehousing
7.1 The fact of being rehoused into new social housing did not of itself prompt any increase in local community engagement. The rate of use of local amenities by the Intervention Group fell after rehousing (as it did in the Control Group also), and participation in local clubs and organisations remained unchanged over time.
7.2 Rehousing was also found to have no impact upon either the size of people's local social networks, which reduced in size by similar amounts in both study groups over time, or on people's available sources of social support. Although we might have expected rehousing to have a disruptive and negative impact upon social networks and social support, this was not the case.
7.3 Rehousing does, however, appear to have been a stimulus to neighbouring behaviours. Intervention Group members showed a relative increase in neighbouring behaviours after rehousing, compared with their Control Group counterparts. Thus, moving to a new house, maybe especially as part of a new development, leads some people to increase their engagement with their neighbours, over and above what would have happened otherwise.
7.4 Although we cannot identify the effects of rehousing on people's sense of community, we can say that within the Intervention Group, all 3 dimensions of community increased over time - belonging, cohesion and empowerment - so that rehousing certainly did not result in an erosion of people's sense of community and may have stimulated a more positive perspective on communities.
7.5 Both safety and perceived collective efficacy rose significantly over time among the Intervention Group, the former increasing by a fifth above its original level. Again, we cannot tell to what extent this is due to being rehoused, though we can say that rehousing did not erode people's sense of safety and collective efficacy as a result of moving from a familiar residential situation to an unfamiliar one, and may have had a positive impact.
Dwelling transition
7.6 Moving from a flat to a house had both positive and negative effects. On the one hand, this transition resulted in relative drops in rates of participation and in the size of people's local social networks; the first of these was statistically significant, the second not. On the other hand, moving from a flat to a house was associated with the largest rises in sense of safety and in collective efficacy, though in the case of collective efficacy it was more the fact of moving out of a flat that produced larger gains rather than necessarily moving into a house. The variations in safety were not statistically significant, though the variations in collective efficacy were. So, a transition from a flat to a house made people feel more secure at home and in their community, but also perhaps made them adopt a slightly more privatised lifestyle.
Dwelling changes
7.7 Many aspects of dwelling change were not associated with any social and community outcomes, but 2 that often did appear related were the acquisition of a garden and improvements in feelings of privacy and quiet at home.
7.8 Where people gained a garden which they did not have before rehousing, they were more likely to report lower levels of participation and also fewer sources of social support (the first of these was statistically significant, the second not). Those who gained a garden were also more likely to report an increased sense of community cohesion, whilst those who retained a garden (i.e. they had a garden both before and after rehousing) were the least likely to do so; these findings were statistically significant. Thus, gaining a garden through rehousing is associated with less social engagement with the surrounding community (perhaps reflecting a lower need or desire to engage socially outside the home once one has a garden), but also with a more positive view of that community in terms of such qualities as trust and harmony.
7.9 Enjoying peace and quiet at home - not facing intrusion and noise from other family members, neighbours and the surrounding area - was associated with a number of positive perceptions of the community. Those who reported gains in privacy and quiet (i.e. fewer serious problems at Wave 3 than at Wave 1) were more likely to also report an increase in neighbouring behaviours, enhanced perceptions of community cohesion and of empowerment (a mixture of individual and collective empowerment), and higher levels of safety and collective efficacy; all of these outcomes apart from neighbouring, were statistically significant. How one feels at home - the ability to relax and be peaceful - appears to affect how people view their surrounding community and helps people to feel secure and empowered.
Neighbourhood relocation
7.10 Moving to a different neighbourhood as a result of rehousing was positively associated with local community engagement, though the differences between Relocators and others were not statistically significant. Thus, Relocators reported an increase in local participation (compared with a drop among Non-Relocators), a larger increase in neighbouring behaviours, and a smaller drop in the size of local friendship networks. Relocation certainly did not have an adverse effect upon people's local social relations, and may have served to some extent as a stimulus to engagement.
7.11 These patterns of behaviour among Relocators did not feed through in any significant way to perceptions of the community: none of the composite measures of sense of community, safety or collective efficacy were associated with Relocation status.
Neighbourhood changes
7.12 Changes in the neighbourhood were associated with people's perceptions of the community, though not with their level of engagement. The more improvements people reported in terms of both neighbourhood infrastructure and services, and neighbourhood crime and anti-social behaviour, the more likely they were to also report increased senses of cohesion, safety and collective efficacy: these were all statistically significant relationships with strong trends. In addition, where people identified the most improvements in neighbourhood infrastructure and services, they were far more likely to report a greater sense of empowerment (also significant). The ability to identify improvements in the neighbourhood - both physically and in terms of services and facilities, as well as in terms of behaviours - can have a positive impact upon how people perceive their community.
Regeneration areas
7.13 Living in a regeneration area appears to have made a notable difference to social and community outcomes in relation to perceptions of community cohesion (trust, harmony, reciprocity, common interest). Sense of community cohesion increased three-fold among Intervention Group respondents in SIP areas compared to other areas, starting from a lower base. This may be due to the positive association we noted above between awareness of neighbourhood improvements - many of which would be delivered within regeneration areas - and sense of community.
7.14 Other aspects of community improved over time in SIP areas (belonging, empowerment, safety, collective efficacy) but by no more than they did amongst people living elsewhere. Participation rates fell over time among people living in SIP areas, but these had been higher in regeneration areas to start with, so the drop may reflect a reduction of regeneration-related activity.