progress for people and places - gowellonline.com

Progress for People and Places:Monitoring change in Glasgow’s communitiesEvidence from the GoWell Surveys 2006 and 2008

February 2010

GLASGOW COMMUNITY HEALTH AND WELLBEINGRESEARCH AND LEARNING PROGRAMME

GoWell is a collaborative partnership between the GlasgowCentre for Population Health, the University of Glasgow andthe MRC Social and Public Health Sciences Unit, sponsoredby Glasgow Housing Association, the Scottish Government,NHS Health Scotland and NHS Greater Glasgow & Clyde.

ISBN: 978-1-906150-13-6

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored on a retrieval system,or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording orotherwise, without the permission of NHS Greater Glasgow & Clyde Health Board.

This report has been produced on behalf of the GoWell team.The current GoWell team is as follows:

Sheila Beck (Ecological Monitoring Team)

Lyndal Bond (Principal Investigator)

Jennie Coyle (Communications Manager)

Fiona Crawford (Ecological Monitoring Team)

Matt Egan (Researcher)

Elizabeth Fenwick (Health Economist)

Ade Kearns (Principal Investigator)

Louise Lawson (Researcher)

Phil Mason (Researcher)

Kelda McLean (Administrator)

Elena Sautkina (Researcher)

Carol Tannahill (Principal Investigator)

Hilary Thomson (Neighbourhood Audits)

David Walsh (Ecological Monitoring Team)

Suggested citation:

GoWell (2010). Progress for People and Places: Monitoring change in Glasgow’s communities. Evidence from the GoWell Surveys 2006 and 2008. Glasgow: Glasgow Centre for Population Health.

1

Contents

Chapter Title Page

List of Figures 2

List of Tables 3

Abbreviations 5

Executive Summary 6

1 Introduction 26

2 The Changing Context in Glasgow 32

3 The Survey 56

4 People and Circumstances 65

5 Housing 79

6 Neighbourhoods 99

7 Communities 116

8 Physical Health and Health Behaviours 133

9 Mental Health and Wellbeing 149

10 Conclusion 165

References 171

Appendices 173

2

Progress for People and Places:Monitoring change in Glasgow’s communities

List of Figures

Figure Title Page1.1 Map of GoWell study areas 312.1 GHA investment in LHO areas containing GoWell study areas 412.2 Glasgow: new housing starts and completions, 1980/81-2008/09 533.1 Schematic structure of the GoWell Wave 2 community health and wellbeing survey 585.1 Length of residence in the area, 2008 835.2 Intention to move home, 2006-08 855.3 Change in housing satisfaction (very satisfied with home), 2006-08 875.4 Tenant satisfaction with home and housing services, 2008 885.5 Change in satisfaction with landlord/factor consultation, 2006-08 925.6 Average attainment of psychosocial benefits from the home, 2008 935.7 Change in psychosocial benefits in TRAs, 2006-08 946.1 Neighbourhood satisfaction, 2008 1006.2 Feelings of safety after dark, 2006-08 1076.3 Perceptions of neighbourhood change, 2008 1086.4 Sense of progress through residence, 2006-08 1096.5 Negative external area reputation, 2006-08 1106.6 Positive internal area reputation, 2006-08 1107.1 Sense of community for British and non-British citizens

in regeneration areas, 2008 1187.2 Social harmony, 2006-08 1207.3 Informal social control, 2006-08 1217.4 Perceived honesty of local people, 2006-08 1227.5 Practical support, 2006-08 1267.6 Emotional support, 2006-08 1267.7 Financial support, 2006-08 1277.8 Perceived influence over local decisions 1277.9 Community indices and perceived community influence 1298.1 Self-reported alcohol consumption, 2008 1469.1 Mean Role Emotional score by IAT, 2006-08 1519.2 Mean Mental Health score by IAT, 2006-08 1529.3 Mean Vitality score by IAT, 2006-08 1539.4 Mean Social Functioning score by IAT, 2006-08 1549.5 Mean WEMWBS scores of positive mental health, 2008 1559.6 Reporting of mental health problems in the previous 12 months by IAT, 2006-08 1599.7 Change in mental health condition, 2006-08 1599.8 Contact with GP over a mental health related issue, 2006-08 160

3

List of Tables

Table Title Page 1.1 GoWell Intervention Area Types (IATs) and study areas 29-302.1 Glasgow SOA local outcomes 362.2 GHA improvement programme outturn 392.3 GHA homes demolished or handed to contractors for demolition

in Gowell areas, 2006-08 422.4 Tenure mix in Gowell areas, 2006 and 2008 442.5 Locally delivered ‘wider actions’ in GoWell areas:

Who are they intended to reach? When did they start? 483.1 Cumulative percentage of interviews obtained in IATs 593.2 Distribution of achieved interviews and response rates at Wave 1 and Wave 2 614.1 Gender distribution by IAT, 2008 664.2 Age distribution by IAT, 2008 664.3 Ethnicity and citizenship status of sample by IAT, 2008 674.4 Household type by IAT, 2008 684.5 Distribution of household type and size by IAT, 2008 694.6 Mean household occupancy estimated as people per room,

by household type and IAT, 2008 714.7 Mean household occupancy estimated as people per room,

by household type and building type, 2008 724.8 Distribution of household tenure by IAT, 2008 734.9 Employment status of working age respondents by gender,

wave of survey and IAT 744.10 Job-seeking activity in past year among British citizen respondents

of working age but not in employment or full-time education by IAT, 2008 754.11 Participation in training or education in past year by British citizen

respondents by age group, 2008 764.12 Percentage of NEETs aged 16-24 years in households of British

citizen respondents by IAT, 2006 and 2008 765.1 Housing tenure by IAT, 2008 805.2 Dwelling types by IAT, 2008 815.3 Housing improvement works by tenure within IATs, 2008 825.4 Choice about house moves over the period 2006-08 845.5 Reasons for intending to move home by IAT, 2008 855.6 Housing satisfaction by tenure, 2006-08 865.7 Housing satisfaction by dwelling type, 2008 875.8 Items of poor housing quality, 2008 895.9 Mean ratings for housing quality item groupings, by tenure, 2008 90

4


List of Tables cont’d

Table Title Page 5.10 Change in mean quality ratings, by dwelling type by IAT, 2006-08 915.11 Definition of psychosocial benefits from the home 935.12 Psychosocial benefits of home, by dwelling type, 2008 955.13 Housing satisfaction by tenure, non-regeneration areas, 2008 965.14 Satisfaction with governance by tenure, non-regeneration areas, 2008 966.1 Ratings of the neighbourhood environment, 2006-08 1026.2 Ratings of local amenities, 2006-08 1036.3 Anti-social behaviour problems, 2006-08 1056.4 Major anti-social behaviour problems, 2008 1066.5 Community engagement in regeneration, 2008 1116.6 Community engagement and feelings about the neighbourhood in TRAs, 2008 1137.1 Sense of belonging, 2006-08 1177.2 Belonging, enjoyment and inclusion, 2008 1187.3 Sense of community index by household type, 2008 1197.4 Community cohesion index by household type, 2008 1237.5 Neighbourliness, 2008 1237.6 Neighbourliness index by household type, 2008 1247.7 Social contacts, 2006-08 1257.8 Community empowerment, 2008 1287.9 Community empowerment index by household type, 2008 1288.1 Householders reporting no specific health problems or one or

more health problems, 2006-08 1358.2 Long-term, recent and current health problems that changed significantly in

prevalence between 2006 and 2008, by IAT and gender 1368.3 Summary count of significant changes in prevalence of long term, recent

and current health problems between 2006 and 2008, by IAT and gender 1378.4 Percentage of GoWell householders reporting no GP consultations or

three or more GP consultations in 2006 and 2008 1399.1 Construction of the SF-12 mental health sub-scales 1509.2 WEMWBS positive mental health scale 1559.3 Mean mental health scores by gender and age for each IAT 1579.4 Cross-tablulated percentages of respondents scoring low or high in

measures of positive (WEMWBS) and negative (SF-12) mental health 164

5

Abbreviations

BTS Below Tolerable StandardBMI Body Mass IndexCAPI Computer-Assisted Personal InterviewingCBHA Community Based Housing AssociationCHCP Community Health and Care PartnershipCHI Community Health IndexCRF Community Regeneration FundGCC Glasgow City CouncilGCPH Glasgow Centre for Population HealthGCPP Glasgow Community Planning PartnershipGHA Glasgow Housing AssociationGP General Practitioner HIAs Housing Improvement AreasIAT Intervention Area TypeIPAQ International Physical Activity QuestionnaireISPI Inequalities Sensitive Practice InitiativesKATS Kids and Adults Together in SighthillLHO Local Housing OrganisationLHS Local Housing StrategyLRAs Local Regeneration AreasMSF Multi-storey FlatNEET Not in employment, education or trainingPEs Peripheral EstatesPPR Persons-per-roomPPF Public Partnership ForumROA Regeneration Outcome AgreementRSLs Registered Social LandlordsSBD Secured by DesignSEN Special Educational NeedsSHQS Scottish Housing Quality StandardSHS Scottish Health SurveySIMD Scottish Index of Multiple DeprivationSOA Single Outcome AgreementSPV Special Purpose VehicleTRAs Transformational Regeneration AreasWEMWBS Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Wellbeing ScaleWSAs Wider Surrounding Areas

6


BackgroundUrban regeneration features prominently insocial policy but surprisingly little is knownabout the impacts of different approachesbecause many regeneration programmeshave been poorly studied or not studied atall.

Glasgow, Scotland’s largest city, is receivingsignificant investment in regeneration aimedat improving and transformingdisadvantaged homes, neighbourhoodsand communities. GoWell is a research andlearning programme that aims to investigatethe impact of investment in Glasgow’sregeneration on the health and wellbeing ofindividuals, families and communities over aten-year period. GoWell aims to establishthe nature and extent of these impacts, tolearn about the relative effectiveness ofdifferent approaches, and to inform policyand practice in Scotland and beyond.

Glasgow’s regeneration activities arefunded and delivered by a number of publicand private sector organisations. GlasgowHousing Association (GHA), Glasgow CityCouncil (GCC), many other local housingorganisations, and stakeholders outside thehousing sector are involved. Someactivities are co-ordinated, for example, aspart of the city’s Community Plan orHousing Strategy, and some have emergedindependently.

GoWell researchers surveyed just over6,000 Glasgow householders in 2006 and4,657 in 2008 to see how the early stages ofthese regeneration processes have affectedpeople and places in neighbourhoodsacross the city. This report summarisesfindings to show how neighbourhoods havechanged: focusing on residential outcomes,social and community outcomes, humancapital and health outcomes.

Introduction

Executive Summary

7

Purpose of reportWhat follows are the key points thatsummarise the overview of findings,looking at the 2008 results and comparingthem with the baseline positions found in2006. The overview has a number offunctions.

1) Providing policy-makers andpractitioners involved in Glasgow’sregeneration with evidence ofcommunity impacts at this relativelyearly stage in the regenerationprocess. This is part of GoWell’s‘formative evaluation’ function: i.e.providing stakeholders with regularfeedback to help assess progress andinform continuous improvement andplanning processes.

2) Providing GoWell researchers with agreater understanding of the keychanges taking place to help guide anumber of the programme’s ‘nextsteps.’ For example, the report willprovide a foundation for developinganalysis strategies to help identify keyfindings to be fed back to specificcommunities, and potential lessonsthat may be transferable to otherregeneration settings.

3) GoWell is a long term study (tenyears): overviews such as this are animportant means of ‘remembering’early developments in the programmethat can be referenced at a later stage.

The two years that separate the 2006 and2008 surveys represent a short period oftime over which to find large-scale change.So, major shifts are not expected at thisstage. It is also not possible, from onlytwo time points, to draw conclusions abouttrends over time. However, the report

paints a picture of how things seem to bechanging in the GoWell areas, and ofwhich factors might be moving in apositive (and which in a negative)direction. The changes found have beenrelated to information about investmentand other activities in the areas, as ameans of gauging their impacts.

MethodsGoWell is a multi-component, mixedmethods study. This report focuses onfindings from the GoWell CommunityHealth and Wellbeing Survey of 14neighbourhoods in Glasgow undergoingdifferent types of regeneration. A randomsample of postal addresses from theseneighbourhoods was drawn in 2006 (forthe baseline survey) and again in 2008,and in the summer months of those yearsone adult householder per household wasapproached to participate in the survey.Consenting householders participated inface-to-face interviews lasting around 35minutes with GoWell fieldworkerscontracted from BMG Research.Structured questionnaires were used toask about people’s homes,neighbourhoods, communities, health,wellbeing and personal circumstances. In2006, 6,008 interviews were achieved (50%response). In 2008, 4,657 interviews wereachieved (48% response). Findings fromthe two surveys were then compared.Appropriate statistical tests were used toidentify significant differences at the 5%(p=0.05) level. In interpreting the results,however, the substantive importance of thedifferences was considered.

8


SettingsThe 14 GoWell neighbourhoods wereselected and grouped into five categories.GoWell terms these categoriesIntervention Area Types (IATs): theycorrespond to five broad types ofregeneration activity taking place in thecity. The five Intervention Area Types are:

o Transformational RegenerationAreas (TRAs): Large scale, multi-faceted neighbourhood redesignwhich may include demolitions, newhomes, physical renewal, andcommunity initiatives (areas: RedRoad, Sighthill, and Shawbridge).

o Local Regeneration Areas (LRAs):Similar to transformationalregeneration but targeting smallerpockets of disadvantage (areas:Gorbals Riverside, Scotstoun multi-storey flats and St Andrews Drive).

o Wider Surrounding Areas (WSAs):Neighbourhoods surrounding TRAsand LRAs that may be affected by thetransformation of those areas as wellas by improvements in their ownhousing stock (areas: wider Red Roadand wider Scotstoun).

o Housing Improvement Areas (HIAs):Neighbourhoods containing manyhomes that receive housingimprovement investment (areas:Townhead multi-storey flats, Riddrie,Govan, and Carntyne).

o Peripheral Estates (PEs): Theseinclude many social rented homesmanaged by other local housingorganisations besides GHA. A largenumber of new builds are planned forthese areas, partly to attract homeowners (areas: Castlemilk andDrumchapel).

The 14 neighbourhoods selected were dueto receive most of their regenerationinvestment after the 2006 survey.

TRAs and LRAs have many similarities:they are large housing estates withrelatively young populations, sharing somecommon problems and similarregeneration strategies. They aresometimes grouped together as‘Regeneration Areas.’ The otherintervention area types are not expected toundergo neighbourhood-level redesign orphysical transformation to the samedegree as the Regeneration Areas. Moredetails of GoWell’s IATs can be found inChapter 1.

The following section provides an overallsummary of the findings followed by thekey findings from each chapter.

9

Summary

Residential outcomesResidential outcomes have beenimproving for people in many respectsacross the study areas. Furthermore,much of this can be related to specificinvestment programmes such as inhousing and in children’s play areas,and to programmed attempts to improvethe customer service experience ofsocial housing tenants. Overall,housing outcomes are higher thanneighbourhood outcomes, reflecting thebalance of effort to-date.

Residential outcomes are generally lesspositive in Regeneration Areas thanelsewhere, though even here there havebeen improvements. Housing specificoutcomes (such as satisfaction, and arange of psychosocial benefits) arecurrently less positive for the occupants ofhigh-rise flats compared with those ofpeople living in other types of building.These contrasting outcomes by area anddwelling are as expected at this stage,since the improvement of high-rise blockshas not yet taken place in the study areas,and regeneration programmes are still intheir early stages. It is also noticeable thatPEs perform poorly in terms of theirneighbourhood environments, withrelatively poorer outcomes forenvironmental aesthetics, cleanliness andfor some of the amenities on offer locally,such as shops and social venues(compared to other area types).

Two issues which may be worthy ofparticular attention in relation to residentialoutcomes are neighbourhood safety andarea reputations.

Perceptions of anti-social behaviour in theneighbourhood have worsened nearlyeverywhere and feelings of safety outsideafter dark have similarly declined. Mostpeople feel safe within their homes, in partdue to actions taken to improve homesecurity, but this contrasts with morepeople deciding not to venture outsideafter dark. More investigation, by GoWelland by service-providers, is required toestablish why there should be this declinein neighbourhood safety and whetherconcerns about anti-social behaviour arethe product of actual behaviours, changesin neighbourhood supervision services, orfor other reasons.

Trends in area reputations highlight astrong contrast between improving internalreputations (what people feel theirneighbours think about an area) andworsening external reputations (whatpeople feel outsiders think about theirarea). Again this is an issue meritingfurther attention both to identify its causesand potential solutions. The transformationof areas which currently have a largesocial housing presence will partly dependupon being able to change the areas’image and reputation. Housinginvestment and regeneration programmeshave yet to substantially change the tenureand physical structures of these areas, andthis could make a contribution to shiftingarea reputations in due course, but weexpect that dedicated and specialist effortsto change area reputations will also berequired.

Executive SummaryTRAs Transformational Regeneration AreasLRAs Local Regeneration AreasWSAs Wider Surrounding AreasHIAs Housing Improvement AreasPEs Peripheral Estates

10


Social / community outcomesThere have been some notableimprovements in social and communityoutcomes, in particular in relation toreported social harmony and perceivedcommunity influence, though there stillremains substantial scope to improvecommunity empowerment inRegeneration Areas.

The picture of social and communityoutcomes is often a mixed one across thestudy areas, with improvements on someissues and but not others. Thus, whilstsocial harmony has improved, perceivedinformal social control has worsened.There are more people who have dailysocial contacts, but also more people whohave none. Whilst in some areas there hasbeen little change in the availability ofsocial support, in many other areas therehave been drops in social support, withmore people less inclined to ask anyonefor help.

Generally, social outcomes are poorer inRegeneration Areas where there is greaterdiversity and turnover of residents; andwithin these areas, such outcomes arelower for families. This is an issue that mayrequire consideration from public agencies,as relatively low levels of sense ofcommunity and of neighbourliness amongfamilies in Regeneration Areas were found.These are also places with large numbersof families, often headed by adults at theyounger end of the age spectrum (in their20s and 30s) who may benefit from agreater degree of social integration.

Another group whose social integrationmay require more attention is asylumseekers and refugees, for despite theincrease in feelings of social harmony (atleast indicating that social tensions

between groups have been reduced), a lowsense of feeling part of the community wasalso found among the migrant group withinRegeneration Areas, suggesting that effortsso far to assist their integration have beenworking in one respect (reducing conflict)more-so than in another (promoting inter-group engagement).

There is a positive relationship betweenmany community outcomes and reports ofthe community’s influence over localdecisions; thus, efforts to enhance thesense of community within RegenerationAreas may be important not only for theireffects upon community activity and socialinteractions, but also for their potentialreturn in terms of communityempowerment.

Human capital / health outcomesIn terms of human capital and healthoutcomes, there appears to have beenprogress in respect of employment, withsubstantially more adult men reportingemployment than previously, togetherwith a small reduction in the number ofyounger adults with no useful activity.However, rates of non-employmentremain high across the study areas, andrates of seeking employment are lowamong those out of work. Mental healthoutcomes are worsening more thanphysical health outcomes, although twoparticular concerns which straddle thephysical/mental health divide are veryhigh rates of physical inactivity and adecreasing sense of vitality (feelingenergised) among adults in many areas.

Whilst the prevalence of physical ill-healthhas not worsened over time in the studyareas, those people who do have healthproblems are reporting more of them. Onmeasures of physical health, Regeneration

11

Areas are generally no worse than otherplaces, due to having younger and migrantresident groups who report better healththan others. One exception to this is thehigher reporting of psychological andstress-related illnesses by women living inLRAs, which requires more investigation.

Compared to national norms, andparticularly for deprived areas acrossScotland, many health behaviours are noworse in the GoWell study areas thanelsewhere. On the other hand, physicalinactivity is very high across the studyareas. Several health behaviours areworse in Regeneration Areas thanelsewhere, including physical inactivity,poor diet and the amount of alcoholconsumed by drinkers (though rates ofsmoking and drinking are lower inRegeneration Areas due to the presence ofmigrant groups).

The reporting of long-term mental healthproblems (lasting over a year) increasedacross all the types of study area, with GPconsultations on these issues alsoincreasing in the LRAs and WSAs.However, many people who saw their GPfor a mental health reason did not report along-term mental health condition,suggesting an increase in shorter-termepisodes of anxiety, depression and otheremotional problems. Also of concern arethe declines in feelings of vitality (‘having alot of energy’) in the Regeneration Areasand in the WSAs. The question of how tomake more people feel ‘energised’, anddoing things which aid their socialintegration, physical health and mentalhealth is therefore an issue to beaddressed in many areas.

There were substantial increases inreported rates of employment among

working age men across the study areas,with more modest improvements forwomen. Two types of study area (WSAsand HIAs) now had a majority of working-age men in employment. The rate ofNEETs (not in employment, education andtraining) among those aged 16-24 alsodropped slightly over time. However, highproportions of adults (both men andwomen) of working age (in RegenerationAreas more so, but also in other areas) stillreport that although they are economicallyactive, they do not have a job. Indeed, ofthose working-age adults not inemployment across the study areas, only aminority (one-in-six) had taken any actionto seek employment in the past year.

To sum up…A number of areas ofprogress have been identified across thestudy areas, but also many remainingchallenges, most notably affecting theRegeneration Areas but also particularchallenges in other areas too. Overall,physical changes and residential outcomesare progressing better or faster than otheroutcomes, though reported increases insocial harmony, community empowermentand adult employment are notablesuccesses. However, our overall view isthat the social regeneration agenda -embracing community level issues (suchas social interactions with neighbours,engagement with the wider community,local organisations and facilities) andpersonal issues (such as the motivation,health behaviours, skills and training ofindividuals) – needs an increased level ofcommitment, planning, resourcing andpartnership working among a range ofagencies at the local level so that socialoutcomes and health and human capitaloutcomes might be enabled to keep pacewith and improve alongside residentialoutcomes in future.

TRAs Transformational Regeneration AreasLRAs Local Regeneration AreasWSAs Wider Surrounding AreasHIAs Housing Improvement AreasPEs Peripheral Estates

Executive Summary

12


The Changing Context in GlasgowMany regeneration (and related) activitieshave taken place in Glasgow during the earlyyears of the GoWell programme. These havebeen delivered by a range of public andprivate sector providers, often in partnershipand often seeking to engage local people indecision-making. The most widespreadactivity so far has been the delivery ofhousing improvements, which has occurredin all the study communities to a significantdegree. Some key developments aresummarised below. It should be noted thattargets and timescales are subject to revision.It should also be noted that much of GoWell’sinformation comes from GHA – which meansthat some of the activities of other RegisteredSocial Landlords (RSLs) and otherorganisations are under-represented in thissummary. In fact there are a range ofagencies (e.g. Glasgow City Council, RSLs,police, other Glasgow Community Planningpartners, Health Boards, ScottishGovernment, etc) working in partnership toregenerate Glasgow and so it would bewrong to assume that GHA (or indeed thehousing sector) will or should have the primeresponsibility for tackling every issue coveredin this report. Readers should bear this inmind and GoWell needs to try and addressthe issue in future summaries of activity.

• Policy context: The Scottish Governmenthas taken a broad definition of arearegeneration linked to local and nationalsustainable economic growth. Health andhealth inequalities feature prominently ingovernment strategies.

• Local policy: The advent of communityplanning brought renewed emphasis onjoint working between service providersand community input. Many localoutcomes and targets in Glasgow’s SingleOutcome Agreement are relevant toGoWell’s study areas.

13

• Economic development: The upgrading ofhousing stock in Glasgow forms part of thewider attempt to improve strategicinfrastructure in the city region (includingwater, sewerage, transport and thetreatment of derelict land) so that regionaleconomic development is advanced.

• Recession: Regeneration is intended tohelp facilitate economic revival for deprivedareas but current macro-economic forceshinder this and obstruct some regenerationactivities: e.g. slowing private sector house-building activity in the city (although socialsector activity has been maintained to date).

• Tenure mix: No GoWell area typeexperienced substantial changes in tenuremix during the period 2006-2008. Therewere small overall reductions in theproportion of social rented housing(particularly in areas experiencingdemolition), and the PEs experienced asmall reduction in the proportion of privatelyowned homes.

• Physical improvements: 75% of Glasgow’ssocial housing stock did not meet theScottish Housing Quality Standard (SHQS)in the period 2004-2007. RSLs acrossGlasgow have however improved their stockand by 2008/9 56% of social housing inGlasgow City met the SHQS. Data GoWellhas received from GHA shows theirimprovement programme has included theinstallation of heating systems to almost allits stock, fitting of new kitchens andbathrooms (to over half its stock), externalfabric improvements, and the fitting of newwindows to most GHA stock.

• Demolitions: The demolition of low demandsocial housing has been progressing,although some of this activity postdates thetwo GoWell surveys. By the end of 2009approximately 30% of the social housingstock in GoWell TRAs had been demolished,with more being cleared for future

demolition.

• House building: The social housing newbuild programme of ‘re-provisioning’ willassist the clearance programmes. Plansincluded the building of 2,800 new GHAhomes within the agreed timescales of2014-2015. None of these homes had beencompleted by the time of the wave 2 survey(summer 2008), though the first phase of239 units went on site that year. Thesecond phase (approximately 400 units) hassince commenced. GCC has a target of10,000 new social sector homes throughcommunity based housing associations(CBHAs) from 2004-14. The ‘reprovisioning’output (for people affected by demolitionacross the city) for 2008-09 was 278 units.The effects of new build activity around theTRAs should appear by the time of the next(3rd) GoWell survey in 2011.

• Social regeneration: Community actionsimplemented by RSLs, supported by theScottish Government’s Wider Role Fund,have focused on issues such asemployability, financial inclusion andcommunity facilities. VariousNeighbourhood Renewal / Wider Roleprogrammes funded by GHA partneragencies and other RSLs have beendelivered. The most large-scale partnershipGHA activities that GoWell is aware of haveincluded youth diversionary programmes,play area improvements and employabilityprogrammes such as the EnvironmentalEmployability Programme, a trainingprogramme active in 45 GHA LHOneighbourhoods. Glasgow CommunityPlanning Partnership also seeks tocontribute to the reduction of socialinequalities in the city, and to furtheringsocial regeneration by supporting a varietyof projects with the Fairer Scotland Fund(which replaced the CommunityRegeneration Fund).


Executive Summary

14


People and CircumstancesThe demographic characteristics of thestudy areas may play a large part inshaping people’s lives, neighbourhoodsand communities.

o WSAs and HIAs have large elderlypopulations with many older peopleliving alone.

o PEs have large numbers of youngeradults, and only half of all adults ofworking age have jobs.

o The residents of TRAs and LRAs aremore likely to be male and relativelyyoung. These areas are alsocharacterised by having large numbersof families (and also large families) andlarge proportions of immigrant groups.

Demographic and housing differencescould be associated with the responsesgiven to many of the items investigated andcould be at least partially responsible forsome of the differences reported.Conversely, they might mask some genuinedifferences between the study areas. Aspeople move in and out of the areas overtime, the demographic characteristics couldchange. This is likely to influence surveyresponses as, for example, new peoplearrive with different perspectives on theirhome and neighbourhood and potentiallydifferent personal circumstances,behaviours and health characteristics.

Of the five types of area, the inner-cityhousing estates that form the RegenerationAreas have the most atypical demographiccharacteristics, compared to most ofScotland’s neighbourhoods. It is doubtfulthat the creation of such highly unusualcommunities was intended as an outcomewhen the neighbourhoods were designed.They have arisen over time due to the waythe housing market operates and due to the

15

operational practices of a range ofagencies. The present profile of theseareas raises a question for public agenciesinvolved in renewal as to whether thesecharacteristics (or others) are compatiblewith the social regeneration of thecommunities. Does planning regenerationinclude trying to shape the socialcomposition of places as well as thephysical characteristics? Some of themost distinctive demographiccharacteristics are presented below:

• Age: Two of the study area typescontain relatively elderly populations:over a fifth of adults are aged over 65in WSAs and HIAs. By contrast, theadult population is relatively young inthe TRAs and LRAs: around three-in-five adults are aged under 40 and lessthan one-in-ten are aged over 65. Inthe PEs, one-in-five adults are under25 years old.

• Gender: Adult men outnumberwomen by at least 10% in the TRAsand LRAs.

• Ethnicity: Many immigrants reside inthe TRAs (two-in-five being non-Britishcitizens) and LRAs (more than one-in-four). Few live in the other types ofareas. GoWell areas do not includesizable British-born black and minorityethnic communities.

• Crowded homes: The averagenumber of persons-per-room (ppr) ishigh (over 1.5 ppr) for two-parentfamilies in TRAs and LRAs and inMSFs, and also quite high (1.3 ppr) forsingle parent families in TRAs andWSAs.

• Tenure: The TRAs and LRAs aredominated by social housing with

nine-in-ten dwellings being in thesocial sector. Home ownership has asignificant presence in WSAs (half ofall dwellings), HIAs (two-in-fivedwellings) and to a lesser extent PEs(one-in-five dwellings).

• Employment: One-in-seven workingage men say they are economicallyinactive. Most men of working age inWSAs and HIAs report that they areworking, and half do so in PEs. Onlya minority of men in the RegenerationAreas report that they are working.Higher reported employment rateswere found among men in all thetypes of study area in 2008 comparedwith 2006. The same was found forwomen in two area types: TRAs andHIAs.

• Other economic activity: Highproportions of adults (both men andwomen) of working age (40-50% inRegeneration Areas; 20-30% in otherareas) report that they areeconomically active but do not have ajob.

• Looking for work: Only around 11%of respondents who were of workingage, were eligible for work and not infull- or part-time employment or full-time education, had sought work atsome point during the year precedingthe 2008 survey. These figures werehigher (over 14%) in the RegenerationAreas.


Executive Summary

16


HousingHousing improvement work has beenwidespread and popular with surveyrespondents. Significant increases inhousing satisfaction were found. Someimprovements mentioned by respondentsmay have been independent of theregeneration investment, but the overallscale of reported improvement suggests anintervention effect. There has beendeterioration in the perceived quality ofMSFs and a higher rate of intention to movein the Regeneration Areas – whereclearances for demolition have often beenthe dominant housing intervention. Oneexception to the less positive findings fromthe Regeneration Areas is that of enhancedfeelings of safety inside the home, probablydue to the installation of Secure by Designdoors, windows and entry systems.

In terms of housing activity, the mainchallenge now is to improve dwelling qualityfor residents in the Regeneration Areas -and for some of the residents in the PEs,where there are also many aspects ofdwellings rated less than ‘good’. Generally,MSFs in Regeneration Areas were found tobe less capable of providing high levels ofhousing satisfaction or of psychosocialbenefits than other types of dwelling, thussupporting the idea that they should bereplaced wherever possible. Furthermore,most people in Regeneration Areas and athird of people in PEs do not have a gardento use, and the issue of access of privategreen space is an important one given itspotential contribution to health andwellbeing.

• Type of house: In the TRAs and LRAs,around eight-in-ten homes are in MSFsand almost no-one has a garden to use,whereas in other locations most peoplehave a garden. Around seven-in-tenhomes in WSAs and HIAs are houses or

17

four-in-a-blocks, whilst PEs are evenlydivided between houses and flats.

• Residential stability: RegenerationAreas are residentially unstable. Theirresidents were two to three times morelikely to have lived locally for no morethan two years (30%) compared to theother area types in 2008.

• Housing improvement: Over one-in-three respondents (36%) reported that‘improvement works’ had been carriedout to their homes in the past two years.This was highest in LRAs (45%) followedby WSAs (39%) and HIAs (38%).

• Satisfaction with housingimprovement: Resident satisfaction withhousing improvement works was veryhigh, with 90% of those who hadreceived improvement works in the pasttwo years being satisfied with the worksthat had been carried out to their homes.Satisfaction was highest in the WSAs,with 58% ‘very satisfied’, and lowest inthe TRAs where 35% were ‘verysatisfied’ (though overall satisfaction (i.e.‘very’ and ‘fairly’ satisfied) still reached85%).

• Satisfaction with the home: Rates areimproving, particularly with regard tothose who are ‘very’ satisfied with theirhomes. There remain gaps of around15% in satisfaction rates between thesocial rented and private sectors in alltypes of area, except the HIAs, whereratings are much closer (‘private sector’in this instance refers mainly to owneroccupied homes but also includes someprivate lets).

• Condition of the home: There havebeen improvements in the reportedinternal and external quality of homes formost housing types in most areas, butnot for MSFs in Regeneration Areas.

However, most residents rated specifichousing condition features as being lessthan ‘good’ on an item-by-item checklistin Regeneration Areas and the PEs.

• Housing management and localengagement: In 2006, there was a lowlevel of satisfaction that the landlord orfactor took residents’ views into accountwhen making decisions. This hadincreased significantly by 2008 for allarea types - especially PEs (+16%) andLRAs (+20%). There were smallerimprovements in the levels of residents’satisfaction with being kept informedabout decisions. Residents in theprivate sector are the most satisfied withtheir homes, but tenants of GHA are themost satisfied with the housing servicesprovided by their landlord or factor, moreso than private sector or RSL residents.

• Psychosocial benefits of the home:Here we use the term ‘psychosocial’ todescribe potential mechanisms by whichpeople’s mental wellbeing might beaffected by their social environments.MSFs are shown to providepsychosocial benefits to their occupantsto a lesser extent than other types offlats or houses. This is especially true ofthose benefits which impact upon howpeople feel about themselves, such as asense of progress, status, and reflectingtheir identity and values. It remains tobe seen whether this continues to be thecase where comprehensiveimprovement to MSFs takes place. Wealso need to further explore whetherpoorer psychosocial outcomesassociated with GoWell’s MSFs applygenerally to MSFs, whether theoutcomes vary by different types of MSF,or by their location (e.g. is there aneighbourhood effect?).


Executive Summary

18


NeighbourhoodsThere have been widespread, though notuniversal, actions to improveneighbourhood environments, and also toimprove some local amenities such aschildren’s play areas. There have beenactions in study areas to enhancecommunity facilities and supportcommunity arts / recreation projects.Generally, residents’ ratings of their localenvironments have improved since 2006,with the notable exception of theaesthetics of environments (whether theylook attractive). Ratings of environmentalaesthetics have worsened in RegenerationAreas – which is not surprising given theimpacts of processes of clearance anddemolition – and remained modest andunchanged in the PEs. Residents’ ratingsof local amenities are generally relativelyhigh and in many cases have alsoimproved over time. The outcomemeasure that appears to have mostconsistently responded to neighbourhoodimprovements is that which measures thepsychosocial benefit of whether peoplefeel a sense of personal progress in theirlives through where they live.

Exceptions to this general improvementinclude perceptions of anti-socialbehaviour, youth and leisure services, anddeclines in feeling safe outside after dark.This is in spite of numerous initiatives toreduce anti-social behaviour and provideyoung people with more opportunities andfacilities. In all area types, except theHIAs, there appears to be an increasingsense among residents that theirneighbourhood has a bad reputationamongst other people in Glasgow.

19

Key findings relating to GoWell’sneighbourhood outcomes are summarisedbelow:

• Neighbourhood satisfaction:Neighbourhood satisfaction rates werereasonably high but changed littlebetween surveys. While three-out-of-five people in Regeneration Areaswere satisfied with theirneighbourhood as a place to live in2008, this was true of four-out-of-fivepeople in the other three types ofarea.

• Anti-social behaviour: There hasbeen a substantial increase in themean number of anti-social behaviourproblems perceived by residents to bea serious problem in theirneighbourhood (percentage changesince 2006: +34% for TRAs; +24% forLRAs; +19% for WSAs; +5% for HIAs;+57% for PEs).

• Safety at night: Feelings of safety atnight time in the local area havedeclined in all area types, dramaticallyso in the case of Regeneration Areaswhere the proportion who reportedfeeling sufficiently safe in 2008 wasroughly half that reported in 2006.

• Parks and play areas: Thepercentage of residents rating parksand play areas as good was higher in2008 than in 2006 in all area types(percentage change since 2006ranging from +18% for PEs, to +24%for HIAs). This followed widespreadinvestment in such facilities.

• Environmental aesthetics: Residentratings of the appearance of the localenvironment and buildings haveimproved markedly in HIAs (+7%

environment, +11% buildings) andWSAs (+12% environment, +10%buildings). However, these outcomesdeteriorated by 10% to 25% in theRegeneration Areas and by 1% to 2%in the PEs.

• Childcare/nurseries and shops:There have been significantimprovements in the quality ratings ofthese amenities in all area types(childcare/nurseries: increases rangedbetween +13% and +30%; shops:increases ranged between +4% and+22%).

• Youth and leisure services:Considering the increase in perceivedanti-social behaviour, it is a cause forconcern that youth and leisureservices received lower ratings thanmost other amenities across allGoWell area types in 2008. Moreover,compared to 2006, fewer residents in2008 felt youth and leisure services inRegeneration Areas were good (-16%for TRAs and -4% for LRAs).

• Engagement in neighbourhoodregeneration: Regeneration planninghas involved numerous consultationexercises. However, only a minority ofresidents of Regeneration Areas feltwell informed about regeneration, orfelt that there were enoughopportunities for them to have a sayabout processes of change.


Executive Summary

20


CommunityWith regard to community outcomes, thepicture is fairly static in WSAs and HIAs, witha mixed picture in PEs, and a worsening ofmany measures of community in theRegeneration Areas. From what we know ofthe GoWell areas, community activitiesand/or initiatives to boost people’s sense ofcommunity are often patchy and small-scale(but there are limits to what we know: we donot have a comprehensive list of all suchactivities). Sense of community in theRegeneration Areas is often lower forfamilies and for non-British citizens than forother social groups, suggesting a need foradditional support to integrate theseresidents (i.e. in addition to current efforts).In many areas, barely a majority of peoplehave confidence in their community’s abilityto exercise informal social control to preventanti-social behaviour, and only a minoritybelieve in the honesty of people in theirarea. The situation on these issues is worsein the Regeneration Areas than in other IATs.

Community Planning and CHCPs have arole to play in promoting communitydevelopment and engagement. Individualorganisations, including housing providers,also have community engagementstructures and support developments inlocal areas. GHA consultations concerningregeneration and new build housing areasare one example. There have beenimprovements across all the study areas inthe degree to which people feel that theycan, with other people, influence decisionsaffecting their areas. However, only in WSAsand HIAs do a majority of residents feel theycan exert influence.

21

• Community spaces: Only in two of thetypes of study area did as many as six-out-of-ten people rate their local socialand community venues as at least ‘good’(WSAs and HIAs). This suggests that thereis therefore substantial scope for theimprovement of available communityspaces, even before the potentialintroduction of any other resources orpersonnel to support communitydevelopment.

• Inclusion: Between 52-57% ofhouseholders living in Regeneration Areasfeel included in their local community,compared to between 81-88% ofhouseholders from the other GoWell areatypes. This is only partly explained by thepresence of asylum seekers and refugees,whose sense of community is lower thanothers. Even British citizens in these areashave a low sense of inclusion compared toother area types.

• Belonging: Sense of belonging has alsodeclined in TRAs (-13%) but changed littlein other areas. This may reflect theclearances and demolitions in the TRAsbut the picture may also be complicatedby the presence of asylum seekers andrefugees.

• Harmony: Respondents in all types of areahave reported a higher sense of socialharmony between people of differentbackgrounds than they did in 2006 (rangebetween around +5% and +25%),particularly so in Regeneration Areas.

• Trust: Few people in Regeneration Areassee their local social environment as onewhich maintains high standards ofbehavioural norms. For example, trust inother people – in terms of reliance onothers to exercise social control, and theperceived honesty of fellow residents – hasdeclined dramatically in TRAs and LRAs.

• Neighbourliness: Most householdersreport speaking to neighbours frequently,but this is less common in theRegeneration Areas: (speaking toneighbours: 52% TRAs; 50% LRAs; 80%WSAs; 75% HIAs; 78% PEs in 2008).Often this contact does not seem toconvert into more sustained or in-depthknowledge or exchanges, nor does itextend to feelings of trust and reliance inpeople within the wider locality.

• Isolation: Most people report regularsocial contact, but an increasing minorityreport having no contact with relatives(between 7% and 11% in 2008), friends(between 6% and 20% in 2008), orneighbours (between 4% and 15% in2008).

• Social support: The availability of differentforms of social support has been fairlystable in WSAs and HIAs, but has fallen inother types of area. This is mostly due toan increase in people’s reluctance to askfor help. The biggest drop in access tosocial support has occurred in the PEs.

• Perceived influence: There have beenimprovements in all types of area inresidents’ perceived influence overdecisions affecting their local areas – butfrom a low base. In Regeneration Areas,around a third of residents in 2008 saidthey had any influence compared toaround a half in the other area types.Community empowerment appears to beunderpinned by people’s sense ofcommunity more broadly. The morepeople feel a sense of inclusion andbelonging, have social connections withneighbours, and trust in the morality andnorms of their co-residents, the more likelythey are to also feel collectivelyempowered.


Executive Summary

22


Physical HealthThe findings for self-reported physicalhealth problems do not follow the patternof many of the housing, neighbourhoodand community findings. Most of thecomparisons of illness prevalence betweenthe two surveys have found no significantchanges over the period, and most of thedifferences that were statistically significantwere still relatively small (≤ 5%) in realterms. The health findings tended not toshow consistent disadvantages inRegeneration Areas (or PEs) compared tothe other GoWell area types. This isdespite the fact that the RegenerationAreas have been changing in very differentways to the other areas (i.e. experiencinglarge scale clearances and demolitions).This suggests that self-reported healthdoes not bear a strong relation to housingand regeneration activity at this relativelyearly stage of regeneration.

A small decline in self-reported generalhealth and no change in the use ofGeneral Practitioner (GP) services havebeen found. More people reported havingno health problems but those people withhealth problems tended to report havingmore of them than previously (indicatingmore co-morbidity). Health behaviours –inactivity, smoking, poor diet, alcoholconsumption – were often worse amongwhite Scots, flat dwellers (and particularlyoccupants of MSFs), the unemployed andlong-term sick, and among single adultsbelow retirement age.

• General health: Most respondentsreported that their current generalhealth is good or excellent:approximately 80% in 2006 and 75%in 2008. Increases in householdersreporting not good mental health weresignificant (p<0.05) in the TRAs(+4%) and the PEs (+7%).

23

• Long term illness: Overall reportingof no (zero) long term health problems(lasting at least 12 months) increasedby 7% for men and women. Themean number of long term conditionsfor householders with at least one longterm problem also increased for men(from 1.43 to 1.63) and women (from1.45 to 1.65).

• Recent illness: Reporting of no recenthealth problems (in the previous fourweeks) changed little. The meannumber of recent conditions forhouseholders with at least one recentproblem however increased for men(from 1.91 to 2.06) and, less so, forwomen (from 1.97 to 1.99).

• Heart health: Several measures,sometimes linked to heart-relatedproblems (pain in chest,palpitations/breathlessness,faintness/dizziness), show small butstatistically significant findings ofreduced prevalence over time,particularly for women. Reductions ofbetween 3% and 5% were found inTRAs, LRAs and PEs.

• Seeing a doctor: GP use did not differmarkedly between 2006 and 2008.

• Health behaviours: The findings onhealth behaviours support the viewthat unhealthy behaviours areparticularly prevalent in deprivedareas. However, levels of populationhealth and healthy behaviours wereraised in the Regeneration Areas bythe presence of migrants whoreported better health and less healthdamaging behavours.

• Physical (in)activity: In terms ofhealth behaviours, the biggestchallenge identified was physicalinactivity, with two-thirds of

respondents across the study areashaving not done any moderate orvigorous physical activity in the pastweek, and one-in-four also reportingthat they had not walked for at leastten minutes in the past week.

• Diet: In 2008, 55% of GoWellrespondents recalled eating at leastfive portions of fruit or vegetables inthe last 24 hours. There was a smalloverall decrease (from 47% in 2006 to43% in 2008) in the proportion who ateone or more fast-food main meals inthe past seven days. There wereconsiderable variations by area type,ranging from a decrease of 10% in theTRAs (from 50% to 40%) to anincrease of 7% in the WSAs (from 42%to 49%).

• Alcohol: High levels of self-reportedteetotalism (44% across GoWell areasas a whole) are a notable exception tothe generally negative picture of healthbehaviours. This may be acharacteristic of populations living inScotland’s deprived areas, particularlywhen those populations include manyresidents born outside the UK.However, the results are surprisingand their accuracy needs furtherexploration.

• Smoking: Self-reported smokingprevalence was less in 2008 than 2006(40% and 44% respectively). Nearlyhalf of all smokers said they wouldnever quit. Respondents from theTRAs were the least likely to smoke.Respondents from the HIAs were themost likely to smoke.


Executive Summary

24


Mental Health and WellbeingThe picture of mental health amongGoWell residents is complex. It mighthave been expected for mental health tohave become worse in the RegenerationAreas between 2006 and 2008 relative tothe other IATs, because of the higher levelsof poverty and deprivation in these areas,as well as the disruption andinconvenience caused by renewal activity.This is largely borne out by respondents’experiences of mental health problems,which were more common in theRegeneration Areas than in the WSAs andHIAs, and were getting worse over time. Itwas also found that disproportionatelymany of the people with the lowest scoreson the measure of positive mental healthwere residing in the Regeneration Areas.However the increase in the incidence ofrespondents seeking help from their GPfor a mental health problem was negligiblein the TRAs, where regeneration activitymight be expected to be most intense, andwas more substantial in the LRAs andWSAs. Further analysis, includingcontrolling for potential confounders anddemographic characteristics will help toclarify the current findings while futureGoWell survey waves will show whether ornot a clearer pattern of mental healthfindings develop in the medium to longterm.

25

• Mental health problems: Mentalhealth problems (such as longer-termstress, anxiety and depression) haveincreased in prevalence over time in allareas, though particularly in theRegeneration Areas.

• Regeneration areas: The impact ofmental health issues upon quality of lifeand daily functioning has lessened inthe Regeneration Areas whileworsening elsewhere. This could befor a number of reasons, such as:

o populations in Regeneration Areasare more resilient to the impacts ofmental health upon dailyfunctioning;

o residents in Regeneration Areasbecome habituated to difficult andchallenging circumstances and soare less likely to feel ‘down’ aboutthem;

o the more deprived circumstancesthemselves lower the opportunitiesfor mental health problems to haveimpacts upon daily life;

o the prospect of change in the areaacts as a buffer or in a protectiveway against the potentially negativeimpacts of mental health issues.

• Quality of life: Three components ofmental health quality of life as measuredby the SF-12 health survey (RoleEmotional, Mental Health, SocialFunctioning) showed significantimprovements between 2006 and 2008in the TRAs and LRAs, and smalldeclines or no change in the WSAs andHIAs and the PEs.

• Vitality: The fourth aspect of mentalhealth quality of life - Vitality (‘having alot of energy’) - decreased substantiallyin all IATs between 2006 and 2008.

• Worsening mental health: More thantwo-in-five of those people in the TRAs,LRAs and HIAs who reported having amental health problem over the previousyear, said that their condition hadworsened since 2006.

• Seeing a doctor: In the LRAs andWSAs there were marked increasesbetween 2006 and 2008 in the numberof people seeking help from their GP fora mental health problem – with nosignificant change elsewhere.Substantial proportions of those seekinghelp from a GP do not report a long-term mental health condition,suggesting an increase in the incidenceof acute episodes of anxiety, stress anddepression.

• Mental wellbeing: Positive mentalwellbeing scores as measured by theWarwick-Edinburgh Mental WellbeingScale (WEMWBS) were somewhat lowerin the TRAs and LRAs than in the otherIATs, and a disproportionately largepercentage (57%) of the respondentswith the poorest scores lived inRegeneration Areas. Area typedifferences were also present in respectof measures of vitality and socialfunctioning, with people in RegenerationAreas again scoring lower (after takingage and sex differences between areasinto account).

• Demographics: Significant amounts ofthe variation in the measures ofcomponents of mental health may beaccounted for by the demographicprofile of the IATs, rather than, or inaddition to, the differences in theregeneration activities taking place.Middle-aged men may be of particularconcern as they often report the lowestscores across a range of measures ofmental health.


Executive Summary

26


IntroductionThis chapter sets out the following:

• Background: The origins and purposeof this report.

• The Changing Context: What haschanged since the first survey in 2006that could affect the findings.

• Comparing the Surveys: How toconsider the comparisons madebetween the findings from the twosurveys, in 2006 and 2008.

• Study Areas and Intervention AreaTypes: The identification of the studyareas and their grouping into differenttypes of ‘intervention’ or ‘treatment’area.

Background

GoWell is a research and learningprogramme that aims to investigate theimpact of investment in housing,regeneration and neighbourhood renewalon the health and wellbeing of individuals,families and communities over a ten-yearperiod. The programme aims to establishthe nature and extent of these impacts, tolearn about the relative effectiveness ofdifferent approaches, and to inform policyand practice in Scotland and beyond.GoWell is a mixed methods study withdifferent research and learning components.This report focuses on the findings from thecommunity health and wellbeing surveycomponent.

In the summer of 2006, GoWell’sfieldworkers interviewed just over 6,000adult residents in 14 Glasgowneighbourhoods to ask them about theirhomes, neighbourhoods, communities,

27

1

health and wellbeing. The aim was to builda picture of how things were before majorchanges took place in their areas as aresult of housing investment andneighbourhood regeneration.

These improvements, redevelopment andregeneration activities are being funded anddelivered by a number of public and privatesector organisations, including by GlasgowHousing Association (GHA) and GlasgowCity Council (GCC). Consideration alsoneeds to be given to the £435 million FairerScotland Fund (FSF)1 covering 2008/09 –2010/11, of which just over £150 million wasallocated to Glasgow to tackle poverty,regenerate disadvantaged communities andhelp overcome barriers to employment.There are, however, many otherregeneration initiatives taking place inGlasgow that involve different local housingorganisations, and stakeholders outside thehousing sector. Some activities are co-ordinated and some have emergedindependently.

In 2008, GoWell revisited those 14 areasi torepeat the survey and consider what hadtaken place there during the interveningyears, and what impacts this may have hadon different communities and places.

The Changing Context

The areas being studied are affected by acombination of specific programmesdelivered by the housing and regenerationsectors as well as by general public policydevelopments and wider social andeconomic developments. Therefore, thesurvey findings cannot solely be attributed

to regeneration. One of the biggestdevelopments in the period 2006-08 wasthe economic downturn, which could affecthow people feel about their own prospectsand impact directly on housingconstruction activity. At the same time,public policy programmes were lessaffected by the recession. By 2008 thesocial housing sector investmentprogramme, whose aim is to bring thehousing stock up to the Scottish HousingQuality Standard2 had progressedsignificantly right across the City ofGlasgow, including the GoWell study areas.The redevelopment of the TransformationalRegeneration Areas (TRAs) was alsoprogressing with master-planning exercisescompleted, and clearance and demolitionwell advanced. Alongside physicalrenewal, a series of neighbourhoodregeneration activities, or ‘wider action’programmes had also been instituted byGHA and its partners in many of the studyareas by 2008. Finally, across the city,community planning had become wellestablished as a means of better targetingand co-ordinating public service delivery tocommunities. These developments formthe backdrop to the Wave 2 survey and areexplored more fully in Chapter 2.

Comparing the 2006 and 2008Surveys

This report summarises how variablesmeasured in the 2008 survey compare withthose from 2006. It represents GoWell’sfirst chance to take a comprehensive lookat changes to the study areas over time.The timeframe covers a period duringwhich the most immediate impacts of theearly stages of regeneration can manifestthemselves, but the medium and long-termimpacts cannot be examined until


i A fifteenth area was included in the 2008 survey: BirnessDrive. As this area lacks comparative data from 2006,findings related to Birness Drive are not presented inthis report (see Chapter 3 for more details).

28


subsequent waves of the survey. Many ofthe interventions taking place will take yearsto realise their aims, and some are stillbeing planned. Consequently, the Wave 2survey should not be viewed simply as a‘post-intervention’ survey: somerespondents may have experiencedcompleted interventions but others wereliving in areas for which regeneration planshad yet to be finalised or were in the courseof being implemented.

As the two waves of the survey were basedon two distinct random samples ofhouseholders from the GoWell areas,differences in their findings may have arisenfor several reasons, including (a)individuals’ experience of changes overtime; (b) residential mobility changing thedemographic profile (including the healthprofile) of an area and bringing in newpeople with a different perspective on theirhome and neighbourhood; and (c)measurement limitations. These possibleexplanations are not mutually exclusive andall should be borne in mind whenconsidering the findings reported insubsequent chapters.

Many of the statistics presented include theresults of significance testing. These testsare used to identify differences betweensamples (e.g. between the 2006 and 2008GoWell surveys) that are unlikely to havearisen as a result of sampling error. Forexample, a p value of 0.05 indicates a 95%probability that a difference observed in thesamples reflects a ‘genuine’ difference inthe 2006 and 2008 populations (with a 5%probability of sampling error). A p value of0.01 raises that probability of a ‘genuine’population difference to 99% (and a 1%probability of sampling error). Statisticallysignificant differences may or may not belarge, important or useful, as these are

more subjective concepts based on valuejudgements that extend beyond purelystatistical considerations.

The summary presented here aims forbreadth more than depth. It groups theGoWell areas into five Intervention AreaTypes (IATs), defined by the types ofregeneration being delivered or planned ineach neighbourhood. These IATs areundergoing different types and rates ofchange and there are also somedemographic differences between them.Much of the analysis presented comparesthe IATs, but in many cases more detailedanalysis will be required to tease out theextent to which differences over time maybe attributable to regeneration, to spatialdemographics and to other contextsassociated with particular places.Longitudinal and other data are alsocurrently being collected that will enable thematter of attribution to be considered further.

Study Areas and Intervention AreaTypes

In the following chapters, the maincomparisons will be between the five IATs,although, where appropriate, specificGoWell study areas will also be mentioned.Table 1.1 lists and provides a shortdescription of each of these IATs and thestudy areas comprising them, along with theabbreviations used for the IATs. It may behelpful to refer to this table when readingthis report. The location of the study areaswithin the City of Glasgow is given in Figure1.1. Appendix 1 provides study area mapsfor each of the 14 GoWell study areas.

29

1

Intervention Area Type (IAT) Area (number of households at baseline3): description


Table 1:1 GoWell Intervention Area Types (IATs) and study areas

TransformationalRegeneration Areas (TRAs)

Places where major investmentis planned over the next 10-15years, and where changeinvolves a substantial amountof demolition and rebuildingover a long period, as well assignificant disruption for theresidents.

Red Road Multi-Storey Flats (MSFs) and Tenements(1,500): A large housing estate consisting mostly of MSFsand some tenements built in the 1960s, located in thenorth of the city. Includes asylum seeker and homelessaccommodation.

Shawbridge (1,100): A large housing estate consisting ofhigh- and low-rise flats built in the 1960s, located on thesouth side of the city. Includes asylum seeker andhomeless accommodation.

Sighthill (2,500): A post-war large housing estate locatednorth-east of the city centre, consisting of MSFs,tenements and deck access flats. Includes asylum seekerand homeless accommodation.

Local Regeneration Areas(LRAs)

Places where a more limitedamount and range ofrestructuring is planned, and ona much smaller scale than inTRAs. GHA has referred tothese areas as ‘SpecialProjects’.

Gorbals Riverside (400): A small housing estate on thesouth side of the city located next to the River Clyde onthe edge of the Gorbals. It consists of four MSF blocksand some deck access properties.

Scotstoun MSFs (900): Two clusters of post-war MSFs(Kingsway Court and Plean Street) in the west of the city.Includes asylum seeker and homeless accommodation.

St Andrews Drive (500): A small estate of modern deckaccess flats, ‘mini-multi’ blocks, tenements and terracedhouses, located on the south side of the city.

Wider Surrounding Areas(WSAs)

Places of mixed housing typessurrounding areas of MSFssubject to transformation plans.The surrounding areas arebeing used for decantingpurposes from the coreinvestment sites. These areasalso receive substantialamounts of core housing stockinvestment from GHA.

Wider Red Road (4,200): Includes severalneighbourhoods surrounding Red Road, includingBalornock (old and new), Barmulloch and Petershill. Thearea consists of 1930s and 1950s cottage flats, semi-detached houses and some late twentieth centuryhousing.

Wider Scotstoun (2,100): This area, which includes partof Yoker as well as Scotstoun, consists of pre-secondworld war tenements as well as 1930s and 1950s cottageflats and semi-detached houses. It surrounds the twoclusters of MSFs subject to regeneration plans.

30


Intervention Area Type (IAT) Area (number of households at baseline3): description

Table 1:1 GoWell Intervention Area Types (IATs) and study areas cont’d

Housing Improvement Areas(HIAs)

Places which are considered tobe popular and functioningsuccessfully, but wheresignificant improvements arerequired to dwellings, bothinternally and externally.Extensive propertyimprovement works take placein these areas as part of GHA’score stock improvementprogramme.

Riddrie (2,600): A community to the north-east of the citycentre exemplifying inter-war social housing in Glasgow. Itconsists of 1930s four-in-a-block flats and semi-detachedor terraced cottages, many of which have been transferredto private ownership following the right-to-buy policy of the1980s.

Govan (600): The study area focuses on two clusters ofhouses on either side of the shopping centre that providesa focal point for this south side area. One cluster consistsof tenements, while the other is made up of concretehouses and apartments. They represent different types ofpost-war social rented housing.

Carntyne (1,300): This area borders Riddrie and (withrespect to the GoWell area boundaries) has a comparablehousing and tenure mix to its neighbour. The GoWell areasurrounds, but does not include, some non-traditionalhousing that is the subject of a separate GHA investmentstrategy.

Townhead MSFs (1,000): Two distinct clusters of post-warMSFs on the northern edge of the city centre, located atDrygate and St Mungo.

Peripheral Estates (PEs)

Large-scale housing estates onthe city boundary whereincremental changes are takingplace, particularly in terms ofhousing. These estates wereoriginally entirely social rentedbut, as a result of the right-to-buy scheme and privatedevelopments in recent years,there is now a significantelement of owner occupied aswell as rented housing. Privatehousing development and GHAcore stock improvement worksboth take place on theseestates.

Castlemilk (2,300): The study area includes the easternhalf of Castlemilk, which has undergone significant changeover the past 10-15 years as part of the earlier New Life forUrban Scotland initiative. Many relatively modern terracedand semi-detached houses now exist amongst the olderpost-war tenements. The area is situated on Glasgow’ssouth-east periphery.

Drumchapel (4,600): Drumchapel was planned in the1950s and was the last of Glasgow’s three peripheralestates to be built. It is situated at the north-west corner ofthe city and amongst its numerous green spaces containsa mixture of post-war tenements, a few MSFs and somelate twentieth century semi-detached houses – includingsome private sector ‘new-builds’, of which more areplanned as part of one of the city’s ‘New Neighbourhoods’scheme. The study area consists of most of the estate,apart from some neighbourhoods in the south.

31

1TRAs Transformational Regeneration AreasLRAs Local Regeneration AreasWSAs Wider Surrounding AreasHIAs Housing Improvement AreasPEs Peripheral Estates

TRAs and LRAs have many similarities:they are large housing estates withrelatively young populations, sharing somecommon problems and similarregeneration strategies. Throughout thisreport they are sometimes groupedtogether as ‘Regeneration Areas’.

Figure 1.1 Map of GoWell study areas

© Crown Copyright. All rights reserved. Glasgow City Council, 100023379, 2009.

32


The Changing Context in Glasgow

This chapter provides an overview ofregeneration (and related) activities thathave taken place in Glasgow during theearly years of the GoWell programme.These activities have been delivered by arange of public and private sectorproviders, often in partnership and oftenseeking to engage local people indecision-making. The chapter focuses onhousing, and housing-relateddevelopments as much of the data hasbeen received from Glasgow HousingAssociation (GHA), but a summary ofrelevant high level strategies and initiativesfrom other stakeholders is also provided.

The chapter covers the following issues:

• Policy context: a summary of nationaland local policies and programmes.

• Physical change: includinginvestment in housing improvement,the demolition programme, buildingnew homes.

• Tenure change: the extent to whichplans to create more mixed tenurecommunities have been realised atthis early stage in the regenerationprocess.

• Community services and ‘wideractions’: Glasgow’s regenerationprogramme includes a suite ofinitiatives and programmes designedto help residents and strengthencommunities. These includecommunity-wide services and facilities,and targeted initiatives for differentpeople in the community: e.g. parents,children, young people, working-agedunemployed, vulnerable groups,ethnic groups, elderly people, etc.

33

2

• Impacts of the recession: drawingon work from Glasgow City Council(GCC), some early indications of howthe recession may have affectedregeneration and residents.

Recent National Developments

The 2006 Scottish regeneration policystatement4 identified regeneration asbeing about:• Creating vibrant, safe communities

where individuals and families wantto live and businesses want to investand grow;

• Communities which are well plannedand well designed;

• Communities with a diverse andattractive environment;

• Communities which provideopportunities for culture and sport;

• Communities with a sense of identityand pride.

At the time of GoWell’s baseline (2006)survey, the Scottish Executive wasworking to achieve its Closing theOpportunity Gap5 policy objectives inareas such as employability, education,health, access to local services, safetyand the quality of the local environment inthe most deprived neighbourhoods.Other key elements of nationalregeneration policy included measures toimprove the quality of housing (includingsocial rented housing), to tackle fuelpoverty and to prevent and alleviatehomelessness. The CommunityRegeneration Fund (CRF)6 wasestablished to help fund improvements inthe 15% most deprived areas in Scotland.

The Scottish Government has morerecently restated its commitment to arearegeneration in the National Performance

Framework that resulted from its 2007Spending Review. ‘We live in well-designed, sustainable places where weare able to access the amenities andservices we need’ is one of the 15National Outcomes that describe what theGovernment wants to achieve over thenext ten years7. A number of indicatorsare linked to the outcome, including:

• Increased rate of new house building;• Increased percentage of adults who

rate their neighbourhood as a goodplace to live;

• Decreased estimated numbers ofproblem drug users in Scotland by2011;

• Reduced overall ecological footprint;• Improved state of Scotland’s Historic

Buildings, monuments andenvironment;

• Increased proportion of journeys towork made by public or activetransport.

These targets suggest a definition ofregeneration that includes both housinginterventions and broader areas ofimprovement such as services, amenities,sustainability, satisfaction and the healthand wellbeing of people andcommunities. The outcome is alsointended to contribute to theGovernment’s overarching priority ofsustainable economic growth.

From 1 April 2008 the CommunityRegeneration Fund6 together with sixother regeneration funds was replaced bythe £435 million Fairer Scotland Fund1.This change followed calls for a singleregeneration fund. It reflects the newrelationship between the ScottishGovernment and local government setout in the 2007 Concordat, which


34


underpins funding to local governmentduring the financial years 2008-2011. Acentral element of the new relationshipwas a reduction in the number of ringfenced funds for local government andthe creation of Single OutcomeAgreements (SOA) between CommunityPlanning Partnerships and the ScottishGovernment, based on the 15 NationalOutcomes7. The Fairer Scotland Fund(which runs until end-March 2010) isallocated to Community PlanningPartnerships to help address both areaand individual level poverty. CommunityPlanning Partnerships are given greaterflexibility to take decisions on localinvestment and report on delivery of localoutcomes supported by this investmentwithin the SOA reporting process.

In June 2008, the report of the ScottishGovernment’s Ministerial Task Force onHealth Inequalities (Equally Well)8 alsohighlighted the importance of broadlydefined regeneration activities (and therole of GoWell in evaluating the effects ofsuch activities) as a means of tacklingsocial inequalities in health. The reportincludes a chapter on the physicalenvironment, which explores issues suchas environmental justice, greenspace,transport, air quality, housing andcommunities. The chapter concludes thatthere is disappointingly little evidence forspecific effective action on physicalenvironments that would achievemeasurable reductions in healthinequalities in Scotland. There is,however, an understanding of complexinteractions between individual health andphysical and social environmentcharacteristics. This should be useful ininforming joined up national and localactivity.

Regional Investment

Nationally, the Clyde Corridor area,encompassing the Clyde Waterfront andthe Clyde Gateway initiatives, has beenidentified as a regeneration priority.Glasgow is situated at the heart of theseregional developments. Plans for theGlasgow and Clyde Valley area werepublished in a consultation draft in20059,10. They included a 20-year industrialand business land supply with capacityfor 100,000 new jobs; the construction ofover 110,000 new houses by 2017; therestructuring of thousands of socialrented houses; investment in 53 towncentres; a 20-year transport investmentprogramme; a £60 million five-year rollingprogramme for the treatment of vacantand derelict land; a £50 millionprogramme to improve the environmentand the creation of a ‘green network’ by202010.

Four of Glasgow’s main RegenerationAreas lie adjacent to or within the ClydeGateway and Clyde Waterfrontdevelopment areas, but all disadvantagedareas of the city might be expected tobenefit from the major regionaldevelopment plans for the city.

35


Community Planning and CityPlanning

A major potential contributor to theimprovement of the lives of Glasgow’scitizens has been the coordinatedorganisation and delivery of publicservices. Glasgow Community PlanningPartnership (GCPP) was formed in 2004as a vehicle for achieving this. It broughttogether five partners: Glasgow CityCouncil, NHS Greater Glasgow andClyde, Strathclyde Police, GlasgowHousing Association, and Strathclyde Fireand Rescue. GCPP’s stated aims are to‘close the gap’ in life chances betweendeprived areas and other parts of the cityand to reduce or ‘eliminate socialinequalities’ across the city11.

There are three main ways in whichGCPP is expected to achieve these goals:

• Obtaining the commitment of publicservice providers to working together,jointly planning services and betterco-ordinating services, so that theyare ‘delivered in the most effectiveway possible’11.

• Ensuring that service decisions arebased upon the views ofcommunities, with ‘effective andgenuine community engagement atthe heart of [community planning]’.

• Managing the Scottish Government’sFairer Scotland Fund1, which is to beused for projects and programmesthat contribute to regeneratingdisadvantaged communities, tacklingpoverty and overcoming barriers toemployment.

GCPP organises its work under fivethemes: Working Glasgow; LearningGlasgow; Healthy Glasgow; SafeGlasgow and Vibrant Glasgow. Theoutcomes and targets it is trying toachieve have been set out first in aRegeneration Outcome Agreement(ROA)12, and more recently in its firstSingle Outcome Agreement (SOA)13,which aligns local priorities with 15National Outcomes. Each local outcomeis supported by a number of localindicators and targets for monitoringprogress. Table 2.1 shows the 24 LocalOutcomes agreed by GCPP for the cityand relates them to the city’s five mainthemes for improvement. Many of theoutcomes relate to issues within deprivedcommunities, such as those beingstudied through GoWell. Therefore,change for the better might be expected ifpolicy interventions within the study areas– physical, social and economicregeneration – are successful. Althougheach local outcome can be related toothers (these linkages are shown in theSOA document), it can be seen that thetwo areas with the most priority outcomesare the issues of health and crime.

36


Table 2.1 Glasgow SOA local outcomes

OUTCOME DEFINITION

HEALTHY GLASGOW3 Reduce the public acceptance and incidence of over-consumption of alcohol

and its subsequent negative impacts (personal, social, economic).12 Increase the proportion of the population with a healthy BMI.13 Increase the proportion of residents involved in physical activity.14 Improve children’s diets.15 Reduce the difference in life expectancy between the most affluent and most

disadvantaged residents.16 Reduce the harm caused by drug addiction.17 Reduce the proportion of children in poverty.18 Increase the proportion of parents who are capable, responsible and supported.19 Reduce the proportion of residents who smoke.LEARNING GLASGOW20 Improve the literacy and numeracy of the population.21 Improve educational attainment and achievement of all children and young

people.22 Improve skills for employment.WORKING GLASGOW

7 Increase the number of jobs in Glasgow.8 Increase the proportion of better paid and more productive jobs.9 Increase the proportion of Glasgow residents in jobs.

10 Increase performance and volume of business carried on in Glasgow.SAFE GLASGOW

1 Reduce the level of violent crime, including gender-based and domesticviolence.

2 Reduce injuries as a result of road traffic incidents, fires and incidents in thehome.

4 Reduce the impact and incidence of anti-social behaviour.5 Reduce the involvement of young people in crime and as victims of crime and

accidents.6 Reduce the fear of crime.

VIBRANT GLASGOW11 Improve the attractiveness of Glasgow as a place to live, invest, work and visit.23 Improve residents’ aspirations, confidence, decision-making capacity and

involvement in community life.24 Improve Glasgow’s physical environment and infrastructure.

Source: Glasgow’s Single Outcome Agreement, June 2008

37

2

Focussing on the use of the physicalspace in the city, the development strategyof the Glasgow City Plan, published in200314, described specific areas in which itwould seek to secure greater industrialand business development. Areas offocus for Glasgow included: Drumchapel,Glasgow North, East End, M8 East, SouthCentral, Greater Govan, Greater Pollok andCastlemilk. The City Plan also identified

Housing Developments in Glasgow


flagship retail and leisure developments ascontributing to Regeneration Areas. The2005 Regeneration Outcome Agreementfor Glasgow (ROA)12 linked its objectivesclearly with those of the community planfor Glasgow, which emphasised increasingthe chances of sustained employment forvulnerable and disadvantaged groups inorder to lift them permanently out ofpoverty.

Housing strategy

Glasgow’s Local Housing Strategy (LHS)2003-200815 had six original aims:• To promote the regeneration of the city• To raise the city’s housing in all

tenures to satisfactory standards, withaffordable costs

• To meet people’s changing housingneeds

• To prevent and alleviate homelessnessthrough the delivery of effectiveservices

• To ensure equality of access tohousing irrespective of race, gender,disability, age and sexual orientationand to monitor relevant processeseffectively

• To promote effective delivery ofhousing services in the city

An update in 200516 specified the need towork jointly with communities andpartners, developing a more detailedstrategy with reference to specificprogrammes and city localities and abetter analysis of the housing market. Theneed for a fuel poverty strategy was alsostated.

Stock transfer and the creation of GHA

The stock transfer which led to thecreation of GHA in 2003 was a key stagein delivering many regeneration objectivesin Glasgow. The transfer agreementincluded grant support to GHA by the thenScottish Executive, Treasury and privatefinance to fund a range of regenerationactivities.

From an initial stock holding after transferof 80,500 homes, GHA’s stock wasreported in 2009 to stand at around 66,000units, reflecting the demolition of over10,000 units and sales of a further 3-4,000units. The number of units to bedemolished over a 15-year periodfollowing stock transfer (to 2018) hasincreased from an initial total of 11,000units to 20,000 units, so that half thedemolition programme is still to occur.Further, GHA is to build 3,000 new homesas part of a 6,000-unit ‘re-provisioning’programme to assist with demolition andredevelopment, with the other 3,000 unitsprovided by Registered Social Landlords(RSLs) within the city17. By the end of2008, GHA considered that it had 56,000core housing stock units18, all of which hadbeen, or would be, improved throughinvestment.

38


In 2007, GHA stated that while some£1,714 million of public money wasinvested in the initial housing stocktransfer, £900 million of that was historicdebt which was written off. That left GHAwith access to £814 million of publicmoney and to £725 million of privateborrowing, the first of which could bedrawn in the coming year. Of the £814million, £114 million had been allocated fordemolitions, £113 million for new homes,£21 million for central heating and £100million for capital works for owneroccupiers. The balance, £466 million,along with annual rental income of some£200 million, is committed to home andneighbourhood improvements, providinghousing services, community regenerationand running the Local Housing Associationnetwork and support services19.

Regeneration in Glasgow

In December 2006, GHA identified eightTransformational Regeneration Areas(TRAs) within the city which would besubject to extensive demolitions andredevelopment, plus a further seven‘special projects’ involving redevelopmenton a smaller scale (now called LocalRegeneration Areas (LRAs)). Together,these 15 areas covered 35,000 people or6% of the city’s populationii. Six of theseareas (three TRAs and three LRAs) areincluded in the GoWell study. GHA’s aimsfor regeneration in these areas cover thefollowing themes20:• Vibrant places• Housing choice• Growing assets• Attractive neighbourhoods• Stronger, safer communities• Supporting tenants• Jobs and training

Transformational regeneration was toproceed through partnership workingbetween GHA (as the majority housingstock owner in the areas) and GlasgowCity Council (GCC) (a major land owner inthe areas and the strategic housing andplanning authority). A jointly createdSpecial Purpose Vehicle (SPV) was to becreated to deliver regeneration acrossthese eight areas, also involving theprivate sector as a partner, but progresson this has been slow and arrangementsare not yet in place. Once the formalarrangements for a partnership areagreed, three of the TRAs (none of them aGoWell study area) will be used as‘pathfinders’ to test the business modeland partnership arrangements to beimplemented in all eight areas.

Master planning between GHA,consultants and communities wasconducted in 2006 for each of the eightareas, but as a result of a number offactors (recession, planningconsiderations, delivery arrangements,some community opposition) some of theplans for the areas are considered to be inneed of revision and the partners’ view isthat ‘further work’ is needed on them17.

Other regeneration priority areas within thecity of Glasgow include Clyde Gateway,building the Commonwealth GamesVillage for 2014, and the completion offour New Neighbourhoods of owneroccupied housing, one of which is inDrumchapel, a GoWell study area.

ii A fuller account of the regeneration process inGlasgow is given in our earlier report: TheRegeneration Challenge in Transformation Areas,GoWell 2007.

39

2

Investment in Housing Improvement

be complete, thus having a major impactupon the warmth and comfort of people’shomes.

Apart from the GHA stock, the other mainpriorities for investment in housingimprovements in the city have beenprimarily in the private sector. Two-in-five(41%) private sector dwellings had urgentdisrepairs at the start of the GoWell surveyperiod, and a quarter (26%) had low energyefficiency23. There has thus been a focus inparticular on dealing with Below TolerableStandard (BTS) stock and other majorrepairs25. However, changes to make PrivateSector Housing Grants means tested havedramatically reduced the number of pre-1919 properties dealt with under theComprehensive Tenement ImprovementProgramme, which assisted housingassociations in improving tenements whichcontained private owners as well as tenants.Private sector action has been proceedingwith public resourcing via the City Council atthe rate of around 500 private sectorproperties improved per year across the city.Second, support has been given foradaptations to housing for disabled peoplein the private sector, proceeding at the rateof around 300 properties per annum.


Table 2.2 GHA improvement programme outturn

Work Element No. of Units in Core Stock Completions to March 2009Gas heating 20,345 18,081Electric heating 12,616 10,551Kitchens 44,797 28,144Bathrooms 41,586 27,800Roof and overcladding (common property units) 12,614 10,155MSF overcladding 100 92

In 2004 the then Scottish Executive set aScottish Housing Quality Standard (SHQS)21

which set out the standards that all homesin the social rented sector are expected tomeet by 2015 (private sector housing is notobliged to meet these standards).Approximately 33% of all dwellings inScotland passed the SHQS in 2005/6. Intenure terms, this equated to 40% of socialhousing (up from 23% in 2002) ascompared to 31% of private housing (againup from 23%)22.

On average, between 2004 and 2007,Glasgow City had 75% of its social housingstock fail the SHQS23. However, by 2008/9, itwas reported that 56% of social housing inGlasgow City met the SHQS24. GHAaccounted for 25% of the total number ofdwellings brought up to Standard (2,686dwellings) in 2006/07. This proportiondoubled to 50% (10,455 dwellings) in2007/0824. The Scottish Housing Regulator(2009) projects that almost 97% of socialrented housing in Glasgow City will meetthe Standard by 201524.

Table 2.2 summarises the major elements ofwork that have been undertaken to GHAscore sustainable stock. The heatingimprovement programme is considered to

Source: Glasgow City Council, Glasgow’s Housing Issues. Consultative Draft Local Housing Strategy 2009

40


There are no significant Glasgow CityCouncil programmes for investing in majorrepairs and adaptations in the RSL sectorbeyond GHA (traditional housingassociations). Housing associations runtheir own fabric improvement programmes toachieve the Scottish Housing QualityStandard, but without access to HousingAssociation Grant via the city council, henceaggregate figures on the scale of theseactivities are not available to us. The mainemerging need is to tackle poor conditions(in particular poor energy efficiency) in ex-Scottish Special Housing Association stock.This stock is of non-traditional constructionwith solid walls, and is owned primarily byaround seven RSLs. The UK government’sCommunity Energy Savings Programme maybe one source of funding for these works,but match funding has yet to be identified bythe housing associations concerned25.

Housing Investment in GoWell Areas

Up until March 2009, GoWell addresses hadreceived a total of nearly £80 million inhousing improvement investment. Most of this(nearly 80%) has been spent on improvementsto the external fabric of low-rise buildings andinternal improvements such as new kitchens,bathrooms, re-wiring and central heating.

GHA has provided the GoWell team withsummaries of its investment in Local HousingOrganisation (LHO) areas within which theGoWell areas are located (Figure 2.1). Someof the summarised data combine GoWell IATs.For example, the Red Road MSFs andtenements (a TRA) and the Scotstoun MSFs(an LRA) are considered jointly with theirrespective wider areas in the data provided.The summaries can only provide anapproximate breakdown of area investments

and do not show the number of housingimprovement interventions delivered perGoWell household.

GoWell’s HIAs are situated in LHO areas thathave received the most intensive investment todate (Figure 2.1). Other types of GoWell IATare likely to receive more investment overlonger periods.

41


GH

A I

NV

ES

TME

NT

TO S

UM

ME

R 0

9 (£

M)

CE

NTR

AL

HE

ATI

NG

DO

OR

S

EN

VIR

ON

ME

NTA

L

INTE

RN

AL

CO

MM

ON

WO

RK

KIT

CH

EN

/BA

THR

OO

M R

EW

IRE

LOW

RIS

E F

AB

RIC

HIG

H R

ISE

FA

BR

IC

CE

NTR

AL

HE

ATI

NG

DO

OR

S

EN

VIR

ON

ME

NTA

L

INTE

RN

AL

CO

MM

ON

WO

RK

KIT

CH

EN

/BA

THR

OO

M R

EW

IRE

LOW

RIS

E F

AB

RIC

HIG

H R

ISE

FA

BR

IC

LIF

TS

CE

NTR

AL

HE

ATI

NG

DO

OR

S

EN

VIR

ON

ME

NTA

L

INTE

RN

AL

CO

MM

ON

WO

RK

KIT

CH

EN

/BA

THR

OO

M R

EW

IRE

LOW

RIS

E F

AB

RIC

HIG

H R

ISE

FA

BR

IC

CE

NTR

AL

HE

ATI

NG

DO

OR

S

EN

VIR

ON

ME

NTA

L

INTE

RN

AL

CO

MM

ON

WO

RK

KIT

CH

EN

/BA

THR

OO

M R

EW

IRE

LOW

RIS

E F

AB

RIC

0

10

20

30

40

50

TRANSFORMATIONALREGENERATION AREAS*

LOCAL REGENERATION AREAS*

HOUSING IMPROVEMENT AREAS

PERIPHERALESTATES

INTERVENTION AREA TYPE

Figure 2.1 GHA investment in LHO areas containing GoWell study area

* Wider Red Road is included in the figures for TRAs and Wider Scotstoun is included in the LRA figures, as separate datafor these areas were not available to GoWell at the time of writing.Source: Glasgow Housing Association

2

42


Home Security

Since stock transfer in 2003, GHA hasinstalled 46,665 new Secured by Design(SBD) doors and 11,010 homes have beenfitted with SBD windows at a cost ofalmost £56 million across the city.Research by Glasgow CaledonianUniversity26 (independent of GoWell) foundthat in areas where SBD standard doorsand windows have been installed, the levelof total housebreaking fell by 26% and thisfall was greater than that experienced byother areas. In postcodes correspondingto GoWell areas, replacement doorsconstituted around 6% of the totalinvestment in housing improvement.

Clearances for Demolition

As previously noted up to a quarter ofGHA’s housing stock (as at transfer) is duefor demolition over the period 2003–2018,with half of the programme of demolitionhaving already occurred. As a result, anumber of MSFs located in GoWell areasare being cleared. The TRAs have beenmost affected. In those areas, 2,391homes fall within current clearance plans,three-quarters of which had been clearedby March 2009.

Between the GoWell surveys in 2006 and2008, 1,754 homes were demolished orhanded to contractors for demolitionfollowing clearance in GoWell areas (Table2.3).

Most of the demolitions (1,461 homes;83%) were of MSFs in TRAs. The otherdemolished homes were mainly in post-war tenements: 54 (3%) in the TRAs and226 (13%) in one of the PEs (Drumchapel).

The demolition of MSFs is an iconic featureof the current regeneration programme.The events have attracted the traditionalmass media and large crowds ofobservers, some of whom have used videosharing websites such as YouTube todistribute demolition footage. Thedemolition of the Red Road MSFs inparticular has prompted Culture and SportGlasgow in partnership with GHA to initiatecommunity-based arts projects (2009-2015)to commemorate the high-rise era and itstransition. A permanent legacy (museumexhibits and an artwork on the cleared site)is planned.

In July 2008, when GoWell’s second surveywas underway, two of the MSFs in Sighthilland two in Shawbridge were demolished.Two more MSFs in Shawbridge weredemolished in August 2009. Theremaining multi-storey tower blocks in thenorthern half of Sighthill have beenemptied and handed over to demolitioncontractors (clearance of low-rise flats hasalso taken place on a smaller scale). Sixblocks in Red Road are now either emptyor close to being empty with furtherclearances also occurring in neighbouringMSFs and tenements. Preparatory workfor the demolitions is progressing.

IAT* AREA* HOMESRed Road 366

TRAs Shawbridge 420Sighthill 684

HIAs Govan 12PEs Drumchapel 272TOTAL 1,754

Table 2.3 GHA homes demolished or handedto contractors for demolition inGoWell areas, 2006-08

* Includes only those areas and IATs affected.

43


Clearances have involved ‘decanting’ ofgroups of households by the landlord,often to surrounding neighbourhoods and,in the case of Sighthill and Shawbridge,also to holding stock located in thesouthern half of these TRAs. Many of theproperties scheduled for demolition havefor some time been characterised by arelatively high turnover of residents, so theclearance figures will include somehouseholders who moved out of their ownvolition. GoWell has attempted to trackmany of those who have moved.

Demolition planning has impacted uponlocal residents and communities.Residents have experienced uncertaintyabout the future of their homes whiledecisions are pending – as in the case ofsome of the Scotstoun MSFs. Residentgroups have formed in some cases tochallenge specific decisions to demolish(e.g. Sighthill) or not to demolish (e.g. StAndrews Drive) homes. The socialdislocation and sense of uncertaintysurrounding demolition plans are likely tohave short-term impacts, some of whichmay have influenced the way GoWellparticipants responded in the surveys.

Social Sector New Builds

Private sector building work may havebeen disrupted by the recent recession butsocial rented new builds are underdevelopment. Many of these are forresidents of housing stock being clearedfor demolition. Landlords have consultedwith residents over the design of socialrented new builds, with residents at timesproviding input into specifying designfeatures of the homes to which they areearmarked to move.

The social housing new build programmeof ‘re-provisioning’ will assist the clearanceprogrammes. Plans included the buildingof 2,800 new GHA homes within theagreed timescales of 2014-2015. None ofthese homes had been completed by thetime of the wave 2 survey (summer 2008),though the first phase of 239 units went onsite that year. The second phase(approximately 400 units) has sincecommenced. Some GHA new builds willbe in or near other GoWell areas (e.g.Drumchapel, Gorbals, Govan, Shawbridgeand Townhead). The effects of new buildactivity (particularly around the TRAs)should appear by the time of the next (3rd)GoWell survey in 2011.

The City Council has a target to completethe construction of 10,000 social sectorhomes through community-based housingassociations from 2004 to 2014. Thisincludes both a ‘core programme’ and a‘reprovisioning programme’ to assist withthe rehousing of people from thetransformational regeneration areas andother demolition locations around the city(in addition to GHA’s reprovisioningprogramme). In 2008/9 the rate of outputfrom the Community Based HousingAssociation (CBHA) reprovisioningprogramme was 278 units for the year25.

Number of Homes and Tenure Mix

In these early stages of regeneration,clearances and demolitions are outpacingthe building of new homes. Comparingthe GCC Council Tax registers for 2006and 2008, the total number of homes inGoWell areas has fallen by around 2,100and now stands at about 23,500. There islikely to be some delay in clearances anddemolitions being updated in Council Tax

Social Private Owner Social Private Ownerrented rented occupied rented rented occupied

(n) (n) (n) (%) (%) (%)2006TRAs 4,927 27 160 96.3 0.5 3.1 LRAs 1,719 35 122 91.6 1.9 6.5 WSAs 2,840 205 3,185 45.6 3.3 51.1 HIAs 2,973 169 2,381 53.8 3.1 43.1 PEs 5,345 93 1,436 77.8 1.4 20.9 All IATs 17,804 529 7,284 69.5 2.1 28.4 2008TRAs 3,457** 14 189 94.5 0.4 5.2LRAs 1,677 18 146 90.8 1.0 7.9 WSAs 2,739 187 3,254 44.3 3.0 52.7 HIAs 2,924 174 2,321 54.0 3.2 42.8 PEs 5,073** 68 1,287 78.9 1.1 20.0 All IATs 15,870 461 7,197 67.5 2.0 30.6DIFFERENCE BETWEEN 2006 AND 2008 FIGURES (2008 MINUS 2006)TRAs -1,470 -13 29 -1.8 -0.1 +2.1LRAs -42 -17 24 -0.9 -0.9 1.4 WSAs -101 -18 69 -1.3 -0.3 1.5 HIAs -49 5 -60 0.1 0.2 -0.3 PEs -272 -25 -149 +1.1 -0.3 -0.9 All IATs -1,934 -68 -87 -2.0 -0.1 +2.2

registers, so the figures mayunderestimate the actual decrease inhomes, particularly in those areas whereclearances have been most prevalent. Forthis reason GHA data for social rentedhousing unit reductions in the TRAs andPEs has been used. The figures alsoexclude unclassified properties (Table 2.4).The data indicate how the decrease in thenumber of homes is distributed by area

type. Unsurprisingly, the TRAs account formost of this decrease: a loss of 1,470homes. In terms of tenure, most of thedecrease (90%) in the recorded number ofhomes occurred within the social rentedsector.

Clearances and demolitions have had agreater impact than new builds on tenuremix by reducing the number (andconsequently the proportion) of social

44


Table 2.4 Tenure mix in Gowell areas, 2006 and 2008

** Figures derived by subtracting demolition numbers supplied by GHA in Table 2.3, rather than from the Council Tax Register,which lags behind large-scale change in these areas.

Source: GCC Council Tax Registers, 2006 and 2008

45


rented homes in some neighbourhoods,although the changes have been small.Demolitions of homes have served toreduce the social rented sector’s share ofthe housing market in GoWell areas by 2%overall. In contrast, the owner occupiedsector’s share has risen by 2% as a result,despite a smaller reduction in numbers ofunits.

The PEs are notable for experiencing areduction in the number of owneroccupied homes over this period.Castlemilk and, especially, Drumchapel areboth due to undergo extensive new buildprogrammes, which will result in theconstruction of many new private sectorhomes. However, these programmes havenot boosted owner occupancy rates ineither area during the two-year periodconsidered here.

Tenants’ ‘right-to-buy’ social housing hasbeen an important driver of tenure changein the past. More recently, there has beena reduction in the numbers of socialrenters who exercise this right becausefewer of them are eligible for the moregenerous former terms which werediscontinued for new tenants under theterms of the 2001 Act. The more recenteconomic downturn may also havecontributed to this fall. The ScottishGovernment announced in October 2009that the Housing (Scotland) Bill27 to beintroduced in 2010 will reform the Right toBuy. First time tenants and those returningto social housing after a break will nolonger be entitled to buy their property.

The economic recession has modestlyimproved the affordability of owneroccupied housing in terms of the ratio ofhouse prices to incomes. Median houseprice as a multiple of median income was

3.5 in 2002, peaked at 5.4 in 2007 and hassince fallen back to 5.0 in 2008. Interestrates have also fallen. However, lendersnow require substantial mortgagedeposits, which for many customers (andparticularly first-time buyers) makes homeownership less rather than moreaffordable17.

To help people across Scotland who areon low incomes (particularly first-timebuyers) become home-owners, theScottish Government announced its newShared Equity Scheme28 as GoWell’s Wave2 survey drew to a close in September2008. Shared equity means that theScottish Government will keep a financialstake in the property so individual buyersdo not have to fund all of it. Householderswill pay for the majority share in theproperty (normally between 60% to 80%)and the Scottish Government will hold theremaining share.

Wider Actions: Social andEconomic Regeneration

Since 2004, GHA has worked with localpartners to support wider actionthroughout Glasgow aimed at improvingthe quality of tenants’ lives and creatingsafer and more sustainableneighbourhoods. Programmes havefocused on a number of different issuesincluding29:• Attractive environments• Supporting older and vulnerable tenants• Financial inclusion• Jobs and training• Community safety• Community learning and development• Heating and energy efficiency• Improving health

Table 2.5 shows where and when locallydelivered wider actions have beendelivered, or are planned for delivery,across the GoWell areas. The Tablespecifies the types of action and whetherthe focus is on the whole community orcommunity sub-groups. The mostwidespread activity is the youthdiversionary programme, which has beenin operation since before the first GoWellsurvey in 2006. The most common newactivities since 2006 are the play areaimprovement programme and theEnvironmental Employability (CommunityJanitors) programme, which combinesenvironmental actions with employmentsupport.

However, Table 2.5 should not be over-interpreted. It should be noted that peopledo not only benefit from the services andfacilities that are in their neighbourhood –particularly if transport links to other partsof the city are good. Other agenciesbesides GHA are also responsible formany local services and initiatives.

The Scottish Government has developedthe Wider Role Fund in recognition thatRSLs have always played an importantpart in regenerating communities andtackling social exclusion in Scotland.Wider Role funding was first launched as aprogramme in its own right in 2000. AWider Role Policy Statement30 was issuedin 2003 which reaffirmed support for RSLsto play a full role in communityregeneration. A further three years fundingof £12m each year was allocated in theScottish Spending Review of autumn 2007.This provides funding for Wider Roleprojects for the financial years 2008-09,2009-10 and 2010-11. Wider role is notcompulsory and it is for each RSL todecide which activities fit with their

business development. The Wider RoleFund30 has supported a wide variety ofprojects reflecting local priorities andneeds. These include:• employability training and work

experience programmes• help and information services on

financial inclusion• capital funding for community facilities

in areas of deprivation.

The largest efforts to tackle social andeconomic regeneration in the mostdeprived communities in Glasgow are alsoled by the Glasgow Community PlanningPartnership. There have, however, been anumber of changes to the managementand funding arrangements for social andcommunity projects within the city, whichwill have affected the study communitiesas recipients of these social funds andprogrammes.

From 2005/6 to 2007/8, social regenerationprojects were funded through theCommunity Regeneration Fund (CRF) ofaround £40 million per annum. This wasused for projects and programmesdeveloped ‘in conjunction’ with localcommunities and ‘that respond to theneeds identified for those communities’11.In April 2008, the CRF was replaced by theFairer Scotland Fund (FSF), though thelatter included other pre-existing fundingstreams as well. In Glasgow , it is reportedthat this resulted in a more strategicscrutiny of projects funded through theFSF, to better align funded activities withthe city’s SOA priorities, a so called‘project to programme’ shift in funding31.The main effects of these changes were,firstly, that around a fifth of local projectssupported by the CRF and other sourceswere no longer in receipt of financialsupport (though other projects or activities

46


47


may have been funded in their place); andsecond, that a third of the FSF allocationto Glasgow in 2008/9 (£15m) was placedunder the management of the ten LocalCommunity Planning Partnerships for usein support of local priorities. In a furtherchange to funding arrangements, for theyear 2010/11, the FSF will no longer bering-fenced but rather included within thetotal Scottish Government allocation toGlasgow City Council32.

The GoWell team needs to build a fullerpicture of ‘actions’ taking place in GoWellcommunities by contacting a range ofrelevant stakeholders including other RSLsand non-housing sector partners who havebeen developing a wider role.

Tab

le 2

.5Lo

cally

del

iver

ed ‘W

ider

Act

ions

’ in

Go

Wel

l Are

as:

Wh

o a

re t

hey

inte

nded

to

rea

ch?

Wh

en d

id t

hey

sta

rt?

48


Play and Learning Activities

Play Parks andAreas

Substance Misuse(Child)

Home Safety

Youth Diversion

Disabled TenantsEmployability

Literacy, Maths,Language

Training /Employability

CommunityJanitors

Home Fire Safety

HomemakingSkills / DIY

Women at Risk

Social Activitiesand Facilities

Advice - One StopShop

Debt Advice

Community HealthOutreach

Community Events/ Activities

Community Hall /Facilities

Arts Project

Participation in Local Planning

EnvironmentalImprovement

Infa

nt /

Ch

ild

(and

Par

ent)

Vuln

erab

leA

dul

ts /

Ad

ults

at R

isk

of

Ad

dic

tion

Wo

rkin

g

Ag

e A

dul

tsEl

derly

Co

mm

unity

-Wid

eYo

uth

=

Sta

rted

bef

ore

Wav

e 1;

= S

tart

ed b

etw

een

Wav

es 1

and

2;

= S

tart

ed a

fter

Wav

e 2.

* M

ore

than

one

inte

rven

tion

of th

is k

ind

has

been

del

iver

ed in

the

area

(co

ncur

rent

ly o

r in

par

alle

l - s

hadi

ng in

dica

tes

whe

n th

e fir

st in

terv

entio

n st

arte

d)

So

urc

e:

Gla

sg

ow

Ho

usin

g A

sso

cia

tio

n

Are

a

Red

Ro

ad*

Sh

awb

rid

ge

*

Sig

hth

ill*

*

Go

rbal

s R

iver

sid

e*

Sco

tsto

un M

SFs

*

St

And

rew

s D

rive

*

Wid

er R

ed R

oad

*

Wid

er S

cots

toun

*

Car

ntyn

e *

Go

van

*

Rid

dri

e *

Tow

nhea

d

**

*

Cas

tlem

ilk*

Dru

mch

apel

*

IATs

TRA

s

LRA

s

WS

As

HIA

s

PE

s

49

2

Public Services

This section provides a very briefoverview of policies and developmentsrelating to some of the other key publicservices in Glasgow which will affectresident populations in the GoWell studyareas and perhaps influence theirresponses to some of the questionsabout their communities andneighbourhoods.

Transport

Public investment in transportinfrastructure is seen as one of the waysin which the public sector couldencourage economic regeneration. Forexample, the Clyde Gateway regenerationproject has sought to exploit theeconomic development potential of thenew M74 northern extension and EastEnd regeneration road routes. Locally,these have been identified as vital toeffective regeneration (although the planshave proved controversial amongst thosewho are concerned about potential coststo health, the environment and deprivedcommunities, while a public local inquiryinto the M74 extension plans rejectedclaims that the benefits of this extensionjustified the costs).

Access to public transport has also beenseen as an important regeneration issuefor Glasgow. The ROA for Glasgow(2005)12 included an outcome ofincreasing access to amenities throughbetter transport services. Its indicators forthe 15% most deprived Scottish datazones situated in Glasgow were anincreasing proportion of residents withinspecified distances of bus stops, trainand underground stations. More recently,


Glasgow’s SOA (June 2009)13 hasincluded outcomes linked to improvedtransport efficiency, safety, andsatisfaction and increased walking,cycling and public transport use.

Health improvement was claimed as awider benefit in the 2006 NationalTransport Strategy33 – both as a result ofreduced congestion (and thus improvedair quality) and by encouraging activetravel. However, transport planners areconfronted with a series of competingaims: economic growth, congestioneasing, improving access and equality ofaccess, and addressing health andenvironment concerns. Competing doesnot always mean incompatible (forexample, encouraging more people totake up active transport for small journeysmay help achieve all of the above aims)but controversy over plans for new roadsact as a reminder that in practice,transport policies do appear beset byconflicting demands34.

Education

Education in Glasgow has been shapedby a National Policy Framework35 thatincludes numerous initiatives andprogrammes, including the NationalChildcare Strategy, 21st Century SchoolBuilding Our Future, SureStart Scotland,National Priorities in Education,Determined to Succeed, Active SchoolsProgramme, and A Curriculum forExcellence35-41. This list is far fromexhaustive and the GoWell Programmewill not be able to explore the outcomesof each scheme systematically.

50


Free school meal uptake has also been aparticular feature of Glasgow’s schools.The Education Commission Report 200735

stated that 41% of Glasgow primaryschool children and 35% of secondaryschool pupils received them (comparedwith the Scotland-wide figures of 21% and16%, respectively).

Glasgow’s per pupil expenditure isreported to have been higher than thenational average. In 2005/06 the totalgross revenue expenditure per pupil inGlasgow primary schools was £4,428while the Scotland-wide average was£4,138. The equivalent figures forsecondary schools were £6,573 inGlasgow, compared with the Scotland-wide average of £5,771. TheCommission stated that GlasgowEducation Department delivers itsservices through 127 pre-fiveestablishments (i.e., nurseryschools/classes, Family Learning Centres,mobile crèches), 32 Special EducationalNeeds (SEN) Schools and 18 SENunits/centres, 171 primary schools and 29secondary schools; the provision catersfor approximately 80,000 children andyoung people, with services toparents/carers as appropriate.

Since the GoWell Wave 2 survey in 2008,plans to close or merge some ofGlasgow’s schools and nurseries(including Sighthill Primary andBarmulloch Primary – which are situatedin the GoWell areas of Sighthill and WiderRed Road) have been announced andare being implemented.

Health

Glasgow’s health service reorganised inApril 2006 with the formation of NHSGreater Glasgow and Clyde (NHS GGC).This reorganisation coincided with theestablishment of Community Health (andCare) Partnerships (CH(C)Ps), which havea role in bringing partners together toimprove wellbeing in communities as wellas to provide health and social careservices. Five CHCPs fall withinGlasgow’s city boundaries with a furtherfive CHCPs or CHPs linking to the otherlocal authorities within the health boardboundaries (Renfrewshire, EastRenfrewshire, East Dunbartonshire, WestDunbartonshire, and Inverclyde).

The activities of NHS GGC and theCH(C)Ps are of obvious relevance to thehealth and wellbeing of Glasgow’sdisadvantaged communities, includingthose surveyed through GoWell. Whilethese activities are too numerous todescribe in full, initiatives intended to helptackle health inequalities in the cityinclude the Keep Well / anticipatory careprogrammes, provision offinancial/welfare advice in health caresettings, the Glasgow Homelessness andAddictions Partnerships, InequalitiesSensitive Practice Initiatives (ISPI),parenting support, infant feedingstrategies and an emphasis on earlyyears. Each CHCP also has a PublicPartnership Forum (PPF), which providesa route to developing and maintainingdialogues about health issues with thelocal community.

51

2

The five Glasgow CHCPs are co-terminous with the local communityplanning area structures within the city:with two of the community planning areasbeing within each CHCP area. Eachcommunity planning area also has aCommunity Reference Group: a structurethrough which involvement of thecommunity in decisions about the area iscoordinated. These began to operatemore fully between the two survey waves,but it may be too soon to see their impactin the 2008 findings. There are alsoneighbourhood management structures,again co-terminous with the CHCPboundaries, and bring together senior-level officials from the communityplanning partners to take a strategicoverview of each of these five parts of thecity. From a health perspective, theseapproaches enable the determinants ofhealth in these communities to beconsidered with other partners, therebymoving beyond a focus on healthservices as the route to better health.


52


The Economy

Housing investment and arearegeneration can impact upon theeconomic success of Glasgow, and thecity’s economy can impact uponregeneration. With respect to therelationship from regeneration to theeconomy, the city’s economicdevelopment strategy42 recognises anumber of weaknesses within the cityincluding: the effects of having largeareas of derelict land; having unattractivelocations that may not attract businessesand skilled employees; and what aretermed ‘residual image issues’ not just forthe city but Scotland as a whole42. On theother hand, successful regeneration isintended to contribute positively to thecity’s economy in the future by severalmeans. First, this will be achieved byproviding an ‘effective resource base’ ofsuitable, serviced land for development.Second, the city will become a ‘residenceof choice’ due to high-quality physicaldevelopment and locally based services.Finally, the city will re-establish ‘itsposition as a leader in strategic arearegeneration’ through the renewal of itshousing stock and neighbourhoods andby the delivery of major projects such asthe Clyde Gateway, Clyde Waterfront andCommonwealth Games Village.

At the same time, looking at therelationship between the economy andregeneration in the opposite direction,elements of Glasgow’s regenerationprogramme and some householders’incomes are likely to have been adverselyaffected by the recent economicdownturn. Some effects of this downturnwere apparent before and during the2008 survey, but the recession became

more severe with the banking crisis thatfollowed the survey’s completion in late2008. The full effects of the recession arenot known, and of course there is nosimple way of establishing what thecurrent situation would have been likehad the recession not occurred.

According to GCC figures (Figure 2.2),social house-building in Glasgowremained relatively stable in the earlystages of the recession compared withprevious trends. However, there hasbeen a dramatic fall in private sector newbuild starts (which had been steadilyrising since the mid-1990s), which fell byover two-thirds between 2007/08 and2008/09. There has also been a fall inprivate sector new-build completions.

53

2

Discussion

Keeping track of Glasgow’s complex andconstantly evolving regenerationlandscape is a key challenge for GoWell.This chapter represents an early stage inthe process of assembling a picture ofwhat has taken place both in terms ofpolicy developments at national, city andregional levels, and in terms of progresswith housing and neighbourhoodimprovements and wider actions toaddress social regeneration. Much of thelatter information being based onsummaries of GHA’s recent investments,delivery and plans. The information

gathered to-date is incomplete and oftenrepresents local areas that include, butdo not exactly match, GoWell areaboundaries. However, it will help to startto understand how the findings from the2008 survey may be the consequence ofthe changes that have been occurringacross the city.


Figure 2.2 Glasgow: new housing starts and completions, 1980/81-2008/09

Source: Glasgow City Council, Glasgow’s Housing Issues. Consultative Draft Local Housing Strategy 2009: 18 June 2009

Num

ber

500

0

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

1980

/81

1981

/82

1982

/83

1983

/84

1984

/85

1985

/86

1986

/87

1987

/88

1988

/89

1989

/90

1990

/91

1991

/92

1992

/93

1993

/94

1994

/95

1995

/96

1996

/97

1997

/98

1998

/99

1999

/00

2000

/01

2001

/02

2002

/03

2003

/04

2004

/05

2005

/06

2006

/07

2007

/08

2008

/09

All figures are for the current Council boundary.Completions for 2008/09 are provisional.

Private startsSocial Rented startsPrivate completionsSocial Rented completions

54


Key Points

• The Scottish Government has over thepast few years taken a broad definitionof area regeneration so that placescontribute to sustainable economicgrowth for their own towns/cities andthe nation as a whole. Health hasfeatured prominently in governmentstrategies, especially the challenge ofreducing health inequalities betweenplaces. The Fairer Scotland Fund1 isnow in its final year and the ScottishGovernment is looking to build on itsrelationship with local government,offering ongoing support toCommunity Planning Partnershipsthrough its ‘Community regenerationand tackling poverty learning network.’

• The upgrading of housing stock inGlasgow forms part of the widerattempt to improve strategicinfrastructure in the city region(including water, sewerage, transportand the treatment of derelict land) sothat regional economic development isadvanced.

• There is a two-way relationshipbetween regeneration and the cityeconomy:

o Regenerating deprivedcommunities addresses some ofthe city’s image problems, but alsoincreases the contribution that thecity’s people and place assets canmake to productivity.

o The economic downturn over thepast couple of years has slowedprivate sector house-buildingactivity in the city, although social

sector activity has beenmaintained. For GoWell studyareas, this has meant in particular aslowing of progress with theconstruction of the NewNeighbourhood in Drumchapel.

• The advent of Community Planningbrought renewed emphasis on effortsto improve the effectiveness of publicservices by mainstreaming fundingand targeting priorities; through jointworking between service providersand with community input to servicedecision-making. Many of the localoutcomes and targets in Glasgow’sSingle Outcome Agreement (2009)13

pertain to issues that GoWell isexamining in its study areas.

• There have been a number ofprogrammes and investments in thecity over the past few years that canbe expected to contribute to theregeneration of deprivedneighbourhoods and communities andwhich one might expect to seereflected in GoWell survey findings:

o Large-scale investment in the socialhousing stock, especially theinstallation of heating systems (toalmost all GHA stock), fitting of newkitchens and bathrooms (to overhalf the GHA stock), external fabricimprovements, and the fitting ofsecure doors (to most GHA stock)and new windows.

o A range of ‘wider action’programmes funded by GHA andpartners; the most widespread of

55

which are youth diversionaryprogrammes, play parkimprovements, and anenvironmental improvement andemployability programme(‘community janitors’).

o A range of community actionsimplemented by RSLs in deprivedareas, supported by the ScottishGovernment’s Wider Role Fund30,focusing on issues such asemployability, financial inclusionand community facilities.

o Glasgow Community PlanningPartnership also seeks tocontribute to the reduction of socialinequalities in the city, and tofurthering social regeneration bysupporting a variety of projects withthe Fairer Scotland Fund (whichreplaced the CommunityRegeneration Fund)1,6.

• The demolition of low demand socialhousing has been progressing. Withinthe TRAs within the GoWell study,approximately 30% of the socialhousing stock has been demolished,and a further proportion is inclearance for future demolition.

• The social housing new buildprogramme of ‘re-provisioning’ willassist the clearance programmes.Plans included the building of 2,800new GHA homes within the agreedtimescales of 2014-2015. None ofthese homes had been completed bythe time of the wave 2 survey (summer2008), though the first phase of 239units went on site that year. The

second phase (approximately 400units) has since commenced. GCChas a target of 10,000 new socialsector homes through communitybased housing associations (CBHAs)from 2004-14. The ‘reprovisioning’output (for people affected bydemolition across the city) for 2008-09was 278 units25. The effects of newbuild activity around the TRAs shouldappear by the time of the next (3rd)GoWell survey in 2011.


2

56


The Survey

The GoWell community health andwellbeing survey consists of a repeat cross-sectional survey of the study communities,together with longitudinal surveys of cohortsof ‘remainers’ and ‘outmovers’ from theRegeneration Areas. This chapter describesthe overall design of the second surveyconducted in 2008. To enable the mostconsistent possible comparison of theresults from the 2008 survey with those fromthe first survey in 2006, in planning thesecond survey as few changes to themethods and the questionnaire as possiblewere made. The main differences betweenthe two surveys are outlined in this chapter.

The chapter proceeds to explain thefollowing:

• Sample Design: the organisation of thesample into different types of studyarea; and the relationship between thecross-sectional and longitudinalsamples.

• Fieldwork and Interviews Achieved:the organisation of the interviewfieldwork; the achievement of thesample through repeat contacts; surveyresponse rates in different areas; andthe distribution of the sample betweenareas.

• The Questionnaire: changes to thesurvey content, either to capture newinformation or to improve the collectionof information on particular topics.

• Data Preparation and Analysis:quality checking of the data; weightingthe data to ensure it is representative ofthe study communities; the approach tothe analysis of the data.

57

3Sample Design: Cross-sectional and Longitudinal Samples

This report considers the two surveywaves as studies of repeat randomstratified cross-sectional samples. Theadvantage of this type of sampling is that itis relatively easy to obtain substantialnumbers of interviews, which gives abroad and reliable snapshot of people’scircumstances and opinions at successivepoints in time during the course ofregeneration. However, this approach hasthe shortcoming that one can only drawconclusions based on summary measuresat an area- or IAT-wide level. In effect,apart from being selected from the sameareas, the samples from the two years areconsidered to be unrelated; and it cannotbe assumed that the findings reflect howparticular individuals are changing.

In fact, the design of the Wave 2community health and wellbeing survey ismore complicated. As part of its broaderaims, it also includes an importantlongitudinal component (see Figure 3.1).By re-interviewing people, “before andafter” information can be gathered aboutthem that shows directly how theirresponses have altered against thebackground of their changing conditionsand circumstances. This kind ofinformation is very valuable as it canpotentially lead to much firmerconclusions. However, it is more difficultto collect since you have to be sure youare interviewing the same respondent orhousehold as before, and know the newaddresses of people who have moved. Italso requires great effort to minimize theloss of respondents from the sample,since we may lose track of them, they maybecome ineligible to continue in the study(e.g. if they have moved outside ofGlasgow), or they may not wish toparticipate again.


The Wave 2 (2008) survey involvedinterviewing householders or their partners intheir homes in 15 study areas (comprised of33 subareas) across the city.

Wave 2 saw the inclusion of a new study areathat had not been investigated at Wave 1 —Birness Drive, which consists of four multi-storey flat (MSF) blocks located nearShawbridge. This was included so that MSFswere more thoroughly represented across thedifferent types of study area, but also so thatthere was a good sample of tower blockresidents experiencing buildingrefurbishment.

The 15 areas are classified into fiveIntervention Area Types (IATs) on the basis ofthe structural regeneration activity takingplace or planned. These are described indetail in Table 1.1, and are listed below withthe number of subareas within each studyarea appearing in square brackets:

1) Transformational Regeneration Areas(TRAs): Red Road MSFs and Tenements[1], Shawbridge [2], Sighthill [2]

2) Local Regeneration Areas (LRAs):Gorbals Riverside [2], Scotstoun MSFs[2], St Andrews Drive [2]

3) Wider Surrounding Areas (WSAs):Wider Red Road [5], Wider Scotstoun [2]

4) Housing Improvement Areas (HIAs):Birness Drive [1], Carntyne [2], Govan[2], Riddrie [2], Townhead MSFs [2]

5) Peripheral Estates (PEs): Castlemilk [3],Drumchapel [3]

Birness Drive is included here as part of thedescription of the sample, but in order toensure the greatest equivalence of the Wave1 and Wave 2 samples, survey responsesfrom this area are excluded from the analysesof change over time reported in subsequentchapters.

58


The longitudinal sample contains severalhundred residents from the TRAs andLRAs. These areas were chosen toconcentrate on because they are currentlyexperiencing the effects of regenerationand neighbourhood renewal mostforcefully and directly. However, thoseWave 1 respondents who are still living inany of the other GoWell study areas couldalso be considered as part of thelongitudinal sample (Figure 3.1). In theevent, a significant number of respondentsin the PEs, HIAs and WSAs were re-interviewed. We shall report the findingsfrom the initial analyses of theselongitudinal data in the near future.

Many of the residents interviewed in theRegeneration Areas (TRAs and LRAs) in2006 were likely to be living in the samehome two years later, simply because theyhad no cause, desire or opportunity tomove. However, a substantial proportionwould have moved, either by choice orpersonal necessity, or because theiroriginal home was due for demolition aspart of the regeneration programme.Some of these people would have movedto a new home within the same area. Inthis report, these two groups of residents,whom we refer to as remainers (Figure3.1), are considered as part of the cross-sectional sample.

Other residents interviewed at Wave 1would have moved from their originalstudy area in the intervening two years(outmovers). The analyses presentedhere include a small number of residentsinterviewed in a TRA or LRA in 2006 whohad moved to another study area by 2008.However, in the analyses presented here,the responses of those outmovers whohad moved to any part of the City that weare not specifically addressing for thepurposes of this report are not included(Figure 3.1).

Regeneration activity in the TRAs andLRAs since Wave 1 meant that the numberof households available to interview inWave 2 was considerably lower than in2006. Considerable numbers of residentshad moved out of the Red Road MSFs,and the subareas of Fountainwell North(Sighthill) and the Plean Street MSFs(Scotstoun). It was most likely to measurechange in the six regeneration study areasbecause they are the areas most activelyundergoing regeneration andneighbourhood renewal. For that reason,combined with the need to interview a

Figure 3.1 Schematic structure of theGoWell Wave 2 communityhealth and wellbeing survey

Cross-sectional sample within

GoWell study areas

Longitudinalsample

in same home (remainer)

Longitudinalsample

in same studyarea

(remainer)

Longitudinalsample

in differentstudy area(outmover)

LongitudinalsampleoutsideGoWell

study areas(outmover)

59

3

sufficient number of people to be able toidentify statistically significant changes,meant that a census of every household inthese areas (rather than only selecting arandom sample of addresses to attempt)was attempted.

Fieldwork and Interviews Achieved

The interview exercise was carried out bystaff from BMG Research (Birmingham)iii.Potential respondents’ addresses werechosen at random from all those availablein the Royal Mail’s Postal Address File(version April 2008) corresponding to thepostcode units comprising the studyareasiv. The numbers of interviews soughtand achieved differed between areas sincethese places vary greatly in the number ofhouseholds they contain, and to ensuresufficient numbers of interviews in order todraw statistically sound conclusions fromthe results.

Letters explaining the purpose and conductof the survey were sent to potentialrespondents a week or so before theinterviewers first visited each study area.

Efforts were concentrated within a smallnumber of areas at a time, althoughtowards the end of the interview period,interviewer effort was more dispersedamong the areas in order to ensure thattargets were met.

Pilot versions of the Wave 2 questionnairewere used in April and May 2008. Themajority of interviews, with the final versionof the questionnaire, were conductedbetween June and September 2008, at theend of which time 4,657 respondents hadbeen interviewed. On average, interviewstook around 35 minutes to complete, usingComputer-Assisted Personal Interviewing(CAPI) equipment rather than paper-basedquestionnaires.

The interviewers initially visited eachaddress up to five times but, particularly inthe TRAs, LRAs and HIAs, where targetswere difficult to meet, up to eight times.They called at different times of the dayand on different days of the week in orderto give the best chance of findingsomebody at home. Table 3.1 shows howefficient the repeat visits were, by IAT.


iii 53 interviewers were employed at different times, none of whom conducted more than 7% of all interviews.

iv Once recently emptied and void dwellings and ‘red-flagged’ addresses (those where an interview wasconsidered potentially unsafe) had been discounted.

Attempts required to obtain interviewIAT 1 2 3 4 5 6+

TRAs 51.5 77.3 88.4 94.6 97.2 100.0

LRAs 40.3 70.5 87.6 94.9 98.4 100.0

WSAs 44.3 78.0 92.7 97.9 98.9 100.0

HIAs 44.8 69.1 79.8 89.3 95.0 100.0

PEs 65.3 90.1 97.3 99.8 100.0 100.0

All IATs 49.7 76.7 88.4 94.7 97.6 100.0

Table 3.1 Cumulative percentage of interviews obtained in IATs

60


Overall, around half and three-quarters ofthe interviews were secured at the first andsecond attempts, respectively. Thevariation between IATs was quite marked,with early responses being very high in thePEs but relatively low in the LRAs. Only2.4% of the interviews were achieved as aresult of visiting more than five times. Theone exception to this pattern was in theHIAs (specifically, Birness Drive andTownhead St Mungo’s), where 3.4% of theinterviews were achieved on the sixthattempt.

The distribution of interviews by study areaand IAT is shown for both waves in Table3.2. Overall, the Wave 2 respondent total(4,657) was substantially lower than atWave 1 (6,008 respondents), the differencebeing in part an inevitable consequence ofthe smaller number of households in theTRAs, which were being cleared inadvance of demolition, and toaccommodate sampling from the new areaof Birness Drive. In addition, a lowertarget number of interviews were set inWider Red Road, since adisproportionately large number ofinterviews were obtained from this area atWave 1. Likewise, the targets for the PEswere set lower than at Wave 1.

Table 3.2 also shows the response ratesby area and IAT, calculated as the numberof interviews obtained divided by contactaddresses issued minus dwellings thatwere empty, could not be found, werebusiness addresses, duplicated orapproached but not used. Overall, therewas a greater than 40% response ratefrom occupied dwellings in the 2008survey. While this signals an acceptablelevel of participation, this is generally lowerthan at Wave 1 (50.3%). Response rateswere considerably lower (by around 10%at least) in Sighthill, Gorbals Riverside andall five HIAs. Conversely, rates appear tohave increased slightly in the ScotstounMSFs and its wider area and in the twoPEs. Feedback from several of theinterviewers indicates that the lowerresponse rate was in large part due topeople not answering their door when theinterviewers called (there were frequentlysigns of activity within the home). It is notclear why this behaviour was moreprevalent at Wave 2 – interview ‘fatigue’,whereby respondents have beenapproached on multiple occasions toparticipate in similar resident surveys, isone possibility.

61


Wave 1 (2006) Wave 2 (2008)IAT Response Response

Frequency Percentage rate (%) Frequency Percentage rate (%)

TRAs 1,435 23.88 1,073 23.04 41.08

Red Road MSFs 330 5.49 441 286 6.39 47.59

Shawbridge 433 7.21 39 309 6.9 34.18

Sighthill 672 11.19 54 478 10.67 43.18

LRAs 726 12.08 818 17.56 46.11

Gorbals Riverside 171 2.85 59 194 4.33 43.30

Scotstoun MSFs 377 6.27 412 349 7.79 51.40

St Andrews Drive 178 2.96 46 275 6.14 42.50

WSAs 1,076 17.91 584 12.54 39.26

Wider Red Road 768 12.78 441 370 8.26 36.39

Wider Scotstoun 308 5.13 412 214 4.78 45.44

HIAs 1,371 22.82 1,222 26.24 41.643

Birness Drive 0 n/a n/a 178 n/a 40.09

Carntyne 345 5.74 60 266 5.94 50.19

Govan 188 3.13 65 255 5.69 42.71

Riddrie 469 7.81 63 260 5.8 35.04

Townhead MSFs 369 6.14 59 263 5.87 42.28

PEs 1,400 23.30 960 20.61 49.64

Castlemilk 706 11.75 50 484 10.81 53.01

Drumchapel 694 11.55 43 476 10.63 46.62

Grand Total 6,008 50.3 4,657 47.54

Table 3.2 Distribution of achieved interviews and response rates at Wave 1 and Wave 2.

Percentages are based on totals exclusive of Birness Drive, which was not a study area in Wave 1.1 Combined response rate for Red Road MSFs and Wider Red Road2 Combined response rate for Scotstoun MSFs and Wider Scotstoun3 Response rate for all five HIAs. When Birness Drive is excluded the response rate for HIAs is 41.91%.4 The constituent response rates were 46.1% for the cross-sectional sample and 54.6% for the remainer sample.

62


The Questionnaire

The questionnaire used at Wave 2 wassubstantially the same as at Wave 1. Inconsultation with the survey company, (BMGResearch, Birmingham) and GlasgowHousing Association (GHA), some changeswere made in order to address matters thathad assumed importance since Wave 1 andto improve questions that had yieldedresponses that tended to be unclear orinaccurate, or that varied little betweenrespondents. Overall, the final version of thequestionnaire was longer than that for Wave1, taking approximately six minutes longer tocomplete, on average. Nevertheless,although residents were informed of the timeit would take, they rarely cited the length ofthe survey as a reason for declining toparticipate in the survey.

The main additions to the questionnaire andthe questions that were shortened orremoved entirely are presented in Appendix2. Several of these changes are worthy offurther comment at this stage.

In particular, there were two healthbehaviours (consumption of fruit andvegetables, and levels of physical activity),about which the Wave 1 results were lessinformative than anticipated. In developingthe Wave 2 survey, the number of portions ofdifferent forms of vegetable- and fruit-containing meals eaten in the previous 24hours was asked, rather than askingrespondents to estimate the average numberof fruit and vegetable portions theyconsumed daily. Two examples of foodsconsidered to be unhealthy (fizzy drinks andcrisps) were included in this question. Howmany times a week people ate two or moreslices of brown or wholemeal bread and oilyfish (healthy foods) and chips (unhealthyfood) was also asked. The reasoning behind

this was to prompt respondents to reflect onwhat they had eaten before stating theirestimate, whereas at Wave 1, it seems likelythat people were broadly aware ofGovernment advice to eat five or moreportions of fresh fruit and vegetables per dayand were reluctant to admit to having eatenless than the recommended amount.

With respect to the amount of physicalactivity undertaken, the number of days perweek and the average time per day thatrespondents did vigorous and moderatephysical activity and went walking in theirneighbourhood was asked. These valuesallow the overall level of activity to bequantified more accurately and to convert itto metabolic equivalent minutes inaccordance with the widely usedInternational Physical Activity Questionnaire(IPAQ)43. This not only provides a moredetailed and continuous (rather thancategorical) measure of activity, but will alsoallow comparison of the results with those ofother international studies employing theIPAQ protocols.

Finally, particular mention should be made ofthe inclusion at Wave 2 of the questionscomprising the Warwick-Edinburgh MentalWellbeing Scale (WEMWBS)44. This is a newscale, first used in 2005, derived fromordered responses to a suite of 14 questionsabout hedonic and eudaimonic aspects ofpositive mental health. This contrasts withthe mental health scales of the SF-1245,which are more appropriate for measuringstates of negative mental health. TheWEMWBS metric is promoted by theScottish Government and is being employedin an increasing number of studies44. Thiswill allow, in time, comparison of the resultsfrom GoWell with those of other studies.

63

3

Data Preparation

The use of CAPI technology enables thedirect electronic transfer and collation of thedata, thereby removing data entry frompaper-based questionnaires as a source oferror, and shortening the time needed toproduce a data file containing all theresponses from the entire sample.

Data were range and quality control-checked and back-checked by BMG. Thiswas an extensive exercise by which at leastone-in-five respondents were contacted bytelephone to verify the manner of conduct ofthe interview and to double-check a selectednumber of responses. In total 1,110 of the4,657 completed interviews were back-checked in this way. This exercise found ahigh rate of uncertainty or inaccuracy withregard to the question about qualifications(18%) but a low rate of inaccuracy for theother questions checked (2% - 6%). All‘errors’ found in the back-checking exercisehave been corrected. Data cleaning,however, is a continuous process sincesmall errors come to light in the course ofanalyses.

To ensure as far as possible that the sampleis representative of key features of thepopulation, a set of weights was developed(numerical coefficients) for all of the casesby which the responses of people whopossessed characteristics that were under-represented in the sample were givengreater importance, while the importance ofresponses from residents with over-represented characteristics wasdownplayed. In this way, we can be moreconfident that the findings for IATs moreaccurately represent the views held by alladults living there.

Each case in turn was weighted by thefollowing characteristics:1) Respondent’s gender: male / female (by

subarea)2) Respondent’s age group: 16-24 / 25-39 /

40-54 / 55-65 / 65+ years (by subarea)3) Respondent’s tenure: owned / social or

private rented (by subarea)4) Adult population size in study area:

subareas within study areas5) Adult population size in IATs: study

areas within IATs

The frequencies of the two tenure types forhouseholds in each of the subareas werederived from the Glasgow City Council(GCC) Tax Register for March 2008.Populations of adults (16+ years old) in thestudy areas and IATs (further classified bygender and age group at subarea level) wereestimated from the NHS Community HealthIndex (CHI) records of GP registrations in thecorresponding postcode units from August2008. Weights are the product of the fivecoefficients whose values correspond to theparticular circumstances of each respondent.

In order that highly under-represented caseswere not given excessive importance,weights were constrained to have a value ofno more than five. Finally, all weights weremultiplied by a constant so that the totalnumber of weighted cases was equal to theactual number of interviews achieved(4,657).

To enable the greatest possible consistencyin comparisons between the two Waves, aseparate set of weights was calculated forthe Wave 1 sample by the same method. Itshould be noted that these weights replacethose employed in some previous analysesof the Wave 1 sample.


64


Data Analysis

At this point, examining changes in thecircumstances, opinions and experiencesof the respondent samples between Wave1 and Wave 2 is of primary interest.Change over time across the five IATs(rather than for individual study areas) iscompared. The responses to questionsthat have so far only been asked at Wave2, are also summarised and comparedbetween the IATs. The following chaptersalso include a number of short analyses(boxed) in which specific researchquestions are addressed in more detail.

Statistical and SubstantiveSignificance

Throughout the report values of p<0.05have been taken to indicate statisticalsignificance, meaning that it is at least 95%certain that the observed difference is dueto a real difference, rather than arising bychance (of which there is a 5%probability). Since the samples are quitelarge, however, it is possible for the size ofassociations to be quite small yet still bestatistically significant. Attributingsubstantive importance to the resultsentails a value judgement that goesbeyond solely statistical considerations.

Key Points

• The GoWell Wave 2 survey covered 15study areas, divided further into 33subareas. Comparisons over time aremade for 14 of the study areasgrouped into five IATs.

• Nested within the GoWell Wave 2cross-sectional survey is a longitudinal

cohort of ‘remainers’ comprised ofpeople who were interviewed in the sixRegeneration Areas in 2006 and whocontinue to live in those areas in 2008.

• The achieved sample was smaller in2008 than in 2006: 4,657 interviewscompared with 6,008 interviews. Thiswas a result of population decline inthe TRAs; a reallocation of some of thesample away from the larger areaswith high numbers of interviews in2006 (WSAs and PEs); and a lowerresponse rate to the survey overall(47% compared with 50%).

• Quality control processes wereemployed at all stages of the surveyfrom the fieldwork itself (where limitswere placed on the number ofinterviews any one interviewer couldconduct), through the post-fieldworkperiod (when over one-in-fiveinterviews were back-checked bytelephone), to the data preparation(with a set of logic and range-checksapplied to the data set). The use of aCAPI methodology in 2008 reducedthe possibility of data-transfer andcoding errors.

• Both the Wave 1 and Wave 2 surveydata-sets have been weighted bygender, age, housing tenure and areapopulation size (as at the year inquestion) to make them morerepresentative of study areas andsubareas. In this way, comparisonsover time and between area types aremore likely to represent the realsituation.

65


People and Circumstances

This chapter describes the demographicprofile and personal circumstances of theresident populations and samplerespondents in the study areas, andstresses that these personal characteristicsmay play a large part in shaping theattitudes, opinions and circumstancesenquired about in the survey. Thefollowing aspects are covered:

• Gender

• Age

• Ethnicity and citizenship

• Household type and size

• Household occupancy

• Tenure

• Employment and job-seeking

• Training and education

• Young people and economic activity

Gender

Data on gender were obtained from theNHS Community Health Index (CHI). TheGoWell team was supplied with the totalnumber of people registered with aGeneral Practitioner by combinations ofsex and age group in all the postcodeunits comprising the GoWell study areas,and thereby the Intervention Area Types(IATs). The collated data (Table 4.1) weredrawn from the register in August 2008.This allows for a two-month lag time forpeople new to a GoWell study area tohave registered with a local doctor orhealth centre, thus giving the best estimateof the actual population in the study areasduring the period of the survey (May-August 2008). Table 4.1 reveals a slightlyhigher proportion of women than men in

the Wider Surrounding Areas (WSAs),Housing Improvement Areas (HIAs) andPeripheral Estates (PEs), but, strikingly, in theTransformational Regeneration Areas (TRAs)and Local Regeneration Areas (LRAs) therewere at least 10% more men than women.

66


Gender (%)IAT Total (n)

Male FemaleTRAs 58.8 41.2 7,159LRAs 55.0 45.0 2,930WSAs 47.8 52.2 11,854HIAs 48.3 51.7 9,286PEs 48.7 51.3 12,548

Table 4.1 Gender distribution by IAT, 2008

Source: Community Health Index, August 2008.

Age

Data concerning the distribution of ages inthe study areas were also obtained fromthe NHS CHI. This information is availablefor five-year-interval groups, but they arereclassified into five age groups here(Table 4.2).

Regeneration Areas are notable for havinghigher proportions of younger adults(around 40% are 25-39 years old) than the

Source: Community Health Index, August 2008.

Age group (%)IAT <25 years 25-39 years 40-54 years 55-64 years 65+ years Total (n)

TRAs 18.6 40.9 27.2 6.0 7.4 7,159LRAs 16.8 39.9 27.3 7.3 8.8 2,930WSAs 14.5 24.6 28.5 11.4 21.0 11,854HIAs 10.5 20.8 26.5 13.5 28.7 9,286PEs 20.4 29.4 28.5 10.9 10.8 12,548

Table 4.2 Age distribution by IAT, 2008

WSAs, HIAs and PEs (less than 30% in thesame age group). These higher proportionsare balanced by lower proportions of olderadults in the 55+ year age groups in theRegeneration Areas (less than about 16%),compared with 32% and 42% in the WSAsand HIAs, respectively, but only 22% for thePEs. The PEs featured the highest proportionof adults under 25 years of age.

67


Ethnicity and Citizenship

Data on ethnicity and citizenship comefrom the 2008 Wave 2 sample sinceequivalent estimates are not available forthe whole populations in the study areasfor the Wave 2 survey period. Thedistinctive nature of the populations in theRegeneration Areas is revealed simply in

*Not known i.e. respondent declined to saySource: GoWell Community Health and Wellbeing Survey, 2008

Ethnicity and citizenship status (%)IAT British British British Asylum Non-British: Total (n)

citizen: citizen: citizen: Refugee seeker citizenship n/k*white non-white ethnicity n/k*

TRAs 53.1 7.7 0.2 14.5 19.2 5.3 1,072LRAs 62.8 9.0 0.3 10.6 12.4 4.9 815WSAs 97.2 1.6 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.1 581HIAs 96.7 1.4 0.5 0.9 0.1 0.5 1,220PEs 96.2 1.0 0.6 0.8 0.6 0.9 960

Table 4.3 Ethnicity and citizenship status of sample by IAT, 2008

Table 4.3 where two-in-five adults (39%) inTRAs are non-British citizens, as are one-in-four adults (28%) in LRAs, compared with avery small fraction elsewhere. Within thesegroups, there are more asylum seekers thanrefugees.

68


Household Type and Size

Independent data on the structure andsize of households for the GoWell studyareas and IATs at the time of the 2008Wave 2 survey are not available, so thebest information available comes from theWave 2 sample itself. It should beremembered that the sample is unlikely tobe exactly representative of the entirepopulation of these areas. Sincehousehold type (family, adult and olderperson) and size are intrinsicallysomewhat related (e.g. family householdsmust consist of more than one person),the two characteristics are cross-tabulated.

Household type was classified in fourways. Adult households were thoseconsisting of one or more adults not living

Source: GoWell Community Health and Wellbeing Survey, 2008

Household type (%)IAT Adult Single-parent Two-parent All families Older person Total (n)

family family

TRAs 44.0 22.4 17.6 40.0 16.0 1,073LRAs 46.9 21.0 18.9 40.0 13.1 818WSAs 44.7 13.4 14.9 28.3 27.1 584HIAs 49.3 11.0 8.0 19.0 31.8 1,222PEs 48.6 19.1 13.8 32.8 18.5 960Total 46.9 17.3 14.2 31.5 21.5 4,657

Table 4.4 Household type by IAT, 2008

with any dependent children (this categoryencompasses families with children ofworking age). Single- and two-parent familyhouseholds were those with one and twoparents, respectively, and at least onedependent child (the presence of otheradults, for example, grandparents, wasincidental to the definition of single-parenthouseholds). Older person households werethose with one or two occupants at least oneof whom was of retirement age. Table 4.4gives the distribution of household typeswithin the sample in each IAT and Table 4.5shows the range of household sizes withineach type of household.

69


Percentage of household type of size (persons; %)IAT Household type 1 2 3 4 5 6+ Total (n)

Adult 65.3 23.5 6.8 3.4 1.1 0.0 472

Single-parent family – 43.8 30.0 17.5 4.2 4.6 240

Two-parent family – – 25.9 33.9 27.0 13.2 189

Older person 73.8 26.2 – – – – 172

Total 40.5 24.3 14.3 11.4 6.2 3.4 1,073

Adult 68.0 19.3 9.9 2.3 0.5 0.0 384



Older person 57.9 42.1 – – – – 107

Total 39.5 22.7 16.3 12.3 5.9 3.3 818

Adult 37.5 33.0 21.8 5.7 1.5 0.4 261



Older person 57.6 42.4 – – – – 158

Total 32.4 30.3 21.7 10.1 4.3 1.2 584

Adult 62.8 23.9 9.3 3.7 0.2 0.2 602



Older person 68.0 32.0 – – – – 388

Total 52.6 27.1 10.3 7.0 2.2 0.7 1,222

Adult 50.1 30.0 13.9 5.1 0.4 0.4 467



Older person 62.9 37.1 – – – – 178

Total 36.0 29.8 16.8 12.0 3.2 2.2 960

Adult 58.5 25.4 11.3 3.9 0.6 0.2 2,186



Older person 65.4 34.6 – – – – 1,003

Total 41.6 26.6 15.0 10.4 4.2 2.2 4,657

Table 4.5 Distribution of household type and size by IAT, 2008

TRA

sLR

As

WS

As

HIA

sP

Es

TOTA

L


4

Adult households make up just under halfof all households in all types of area.Within this, in the TRAs, LRAs and HIAs,more than half of the adult households inthe sample were single persons, and onlyaround 12% of this household type wascomprised of three or more occupants.Single-person adult households were leastcommon in the WSAs (around 38%),where more than a quarter of adulthouseholds were of three or morepersons.

Older person households are leastcommon in the Regeneration Areas (and,to a lesser extent, in PEs) then elsewhere,being most common in WSAs and HIAs,where they account for just over a quarterand around a third of households,respectively. The majority of older personhouseholds in the sample were of peopleliving on their own (74% in the TRAs, over57% in all other IATs).

Family households of both types (single-parent and two-parent) were mostcommon in the Regeneration Areas,comprising around two-in-five households,compared with around 30% in the WSAsand PEs, and one-fifth in HIAs. Largertwo-parent families (of five or morepersons) were also more common in theRegeneration Areas than elsewhere:around two-in-five two-parent families inTRAs and LRAs had five or more persons.Larger single-parent families were mostcommon in WSAs, where they comprisedone-in-eight single-parent families.

70


Household Occupancy

Household occupancy was calculated fromthe 2008 Wave 2 survey data as thenumber of people normally living in thehousehold divided by the number of roomsin the home (excluding bathrooms andtoilets, kitchens and halls). The meanvalues for each of the four household typesin the five IATs are presented in Table 4.6.Although the persons-per-room measurehas long been used to estimateovercrowding, it is nonetheless a basiccalculation that does not take into accountsharing arrangements or the age of youngchildren, so in this form it can only be acrude indicator. It does, however, revealsignificant differences in the density ofpeople per household between the IATs.

Occupancy was highest among two-parent,followed by one-parent, families andusually highest for these groups in theRegeneration Areas (apart from single-parent occupancy levels in WSAs).Therefore, the highest mean occupancyrates of all were for two-parent families inboth TRAs and LRAs, at over 1.5 personsper room; this is often taken as an indicatorof overcrowding. People in HIAs tended tolive in homes with the lowest density (0.71persons per room, overall), partly due tothe preponderance in the sample of olderperson households, which, are likely to besmaller than those of younger adults orfamilies.

71


StandardIAT Household type Mean deviation Total (n)

Adult 0.69 0.347 472

Single-parent family 1.14 0.467 240

Two-parent family 1.52 0.488 189

Older person 0.58 0.234 172

Total 0.92 0.518 1,073

Adult 0.77 0.349 383




Total 0.98 0.484 816

Adult 0.77 0.407 261




Total 0.86 0.459 584

Adult 0.64 0.346 599




Total 0.71 0.401 1,218

Adult 0.69 0.344 464




Total 0.83 0.432 954

Adult 0.70 0.358 2,179



Older person 0.59 0.254 1,001

Total 0.85 0.468 4,645

Table 4.6 Mean household occupancy, estimated aspeople per room, by household type andIAT, 2008

TRA

sLR

As

WS

As

HIA

sP

Es

TOTA

L


4

72


Examining occupancy by housingtype (Table 4.7), it is apparent thatthere was a small overalldifference in the dwellingdensities of the three housingtypes (multi-storey flats (MSFs),0.89; houses, 0.82; other flats,0.81 persons-per-room). Two-parent families in MSFs had thehighest density of all, with 1.5persons-per-room.

StandardIAT Household type Mean deviation Total (n)

Adult 0.69 0.342 1,042




Total 0.89 0.502 2,092

Adult 0.69 0.367 443




Total 0.81 0.429 989

Adult 0.73 0.374 692




Total 0.82 0.440 1,545

Adult 0.70 0.358 2,177




Total 0.85 0.468 4,626

Table 4.7 Mean household occupancy estimated aspeople per room, by household type andbuilding type, 2008

MS

FO

ther

fla

tH

ous

eTo

tal


73


4

Tenure

Tenure data for the study areas and IATswere obtained from the Glasgow CityCouncil (GCC) Tax Register database,abstracted in September 2008, and areshown in Table 4.8. Estimates of private-rented dwellings, which in any case makeup a very small proportion of thehouseholds in the GoWell study areas, arerecognised as being prone to somedegree of inaccuracy.

The majority of households in the TRAsand LRAs were rented from GlasgowHousing Association (GHA) (around 95%and 89%, respectively), most of the

Source: Glasgow City Council Tax Register, September 2008.

Household tenure (%)IAT Rented Rented from Owner Private Total (n)

from GHA other housing -occupied -rentedassociation

TRAs 94.7 0.9 4.1 0.3 4,598LRAs 89.4 1.4 8.1 1.1 1,418WSAs 37.7 6.7 52.7 3.0 6,180HIAs 51.4 2.6 42.8 3.2 5,419PEs 38.6 41.1 19.3 1.0 6,671

Table 4.8 Distribution of household tenure by IAT, 2008

remainder in these areas being owner-occupied (up to about 4% and 8%,respectively). Rental in the PEs was splitalmost equally between those from GHAand from other Registered SocialLandlords (RSLs).

Home ownership was highest in the WSAs(53%) and HIAs (43%) and lowest in theTRAs and LRAs (4% and 8%, respectively).Private-rented households formed anegligible proportion of the occupanciesacross all the IATs, with a maximum ofaround only 3% in the WSAs and HIAs.

Employment and Job-seeking

The employment status of male andfemale working-age respondents in the2006 (Wave 1) and 2008 (Wave 2) samplesis presented by IAT in Table 4.9. Thecategories of employment status are:working (full or part-time), economicallyactive but not working (on a Governmenttraining scheme, registered unemployed,

74


Source: GoWell Community Health and Wellbeing Surveys, 2006 (sample base 4,887 working-age respondents,weighted cases) and 2008 (sample base 3,535 working-age respondents, weighted cases)

Employment status (%)Gender IAT Year Working Economically Economically Total (n)

of active inactivesurvey - not working

2006 20.1 60.8 19.1 717TRAs

2008 33.7 52.5 13.8 4722006 27.8 53.2 18.9 370

LRAs2008 40.1 45.2 14.7 3872006 50.0 27.4 22.6 376

WSAs2008 68.2 18.8 13.0 2232006 44.8 28.8 26.4 473

HIAs2008 56.4 29.7 13.9 3602006 43.8 29.4 26.9 592

PEs2008 50.4 31.3 18.3 3992006 14.3 44.5 41.2 553

TRAs2008 20.8 42.9 36.3 3662006 24.0 44.2 31.8 267

LRAs2008 21.8 47.5 30.7 3262006 42.1 18.5 39.4 432

WSAs2008 49.1 17.7 33.2 2262006 42.0 17.2 40.7 464

HIAs2008 50.0 21.8 28.2 3482006 37.9 12.4 49.6 643

PEs2008 35.5 27.3 37.1 428

Table 4.9 Employment status of working-age respondents by gender, wave of surveyand IAT

MA

LEFE

MA

LE

temporary sick or in full-time education),and economically inactive (retired, long-term sick, looking after home). Note thatthese values are based on the weighteddataset, for consistency with otheranalyses in this report in which changeover time is examined.

75


4

There were significantly greater proportionsof men reporting that they were working in2008 than in 2006 in all of the IATs(p<0.007). These increases ranged from7.6% in the PEs to 18.2% in the WSAs, withintermediate values for the TRAs (13.6%),LRAs (12.3%) and HIAs (11.6%). Theseincreases were balanced in the main by adecrease in the proportion of economicallyactive but not working males (and to alesser extent by a reduction in theeconomically inactive). In the three non-regeneration area types in 2008, a majorityof men reported that they were working,compared with a minority doing so in theTRAs and LRAs.

Changes in reported employment rates forwomen were more modest and morevaried. A significant increase in theproportion of working women was onlyseen in the TRAs (up by 6.5%; p=0.031)and HIAs (up by 8.0%; p=0.001). Therewas actually a slight but non-significantdecrease of 2.4% in the proportion ofwomen working in the PEs.

There is no full explanation as to why higheremployment rates were reported in 2008than in 2006; the differences for men areparticularly stark. Part of the differencecould be explained by the different patternof interview timings in the two surveys.Although in both waves around 30% of theinterviews were carried out over theweekend, 40% of those done on weekdayswere done during the early evening in 2008,compared with 30% at that time of day in2006. While one might expect people notin employment to be equally likely to beinterviewed at any time of the day, thosewith work are more likely to be at home ona weekday evening than during the day. Inthis way, the shift of interviewing effort moreto the evenings meant that a bigger sample

of working people was available for interview.Nevertheless, the extra 5% of workingrespondents captured in this way in the 2008sample compared with that in 2006 does notfully account for the observed increase inemployment rate, particularly among the menin the sample.

Considering all British citizen respondents ofworking age who were not in full- or part-timeemployment or full-time education, onlyaround 17% had sought work at some pointduring the year preceding the 2008 survey(Table 4.10; estimates from weighteddataset). There were significant differencesamong the IATs, the highest rates ofjobseeking being seen in the RegenerationAreas (over 20%) and the lowest in the PEs(around 12%). Around one-quarter of thosewho were unemployed or on trainingschemes sought work, one-in-sevenhomemakers, one-in-five of the temporarysick and one-in-25 of the long-term sick ordisabled sought work during this period.Although not included in the above analysis,around a quarter of the 77 respondents infull-time education also sought work duringthis period.

Sought work in past year (%)IAT Total (n)

Yes NoTRAs 21.5 78.5 335LRAs 20.5 79.5 292WSAs 17.6 82.4 136HIAs 16.4 83.6 324PEs 11.9 88.1 385Total 17.3 82.7 1,472

Table 4.10 Job-seeking activity in past yearamong British citizen respondents ofworking-age but not in employmentor full-time education by IAT, 2008

Source: GoWell Community Health and Wellbeing Survey,2008 (sample base 1,472 working-age British citizens not inemployment or full-time education, weighted cases)

Training and Education

The levels of participation in training oreducation in the past year among theBritish citizens of the 2008 sample areillustrated in Table 4.11 (estimates fromweighted dataset). These decrease steeplywith age, from seven out of ten in theyoungest group (under 25 years) to fewerthan 1% amongst the retired group.

Considering this group by their employmentstatus, around 20% of employedrespondents also undertook training oreducation, while only 9% of unemployedrespondents did so. Small proportions ofthe temporary and long-term sick (6% and4%, respectively) and homemaker (7%)respondents participated in these activities.

76


Taken part in training or education in past year

Age group Total (n)No Yes

<25 years 70.2 29.8 67125-39 years 81.7 18.3 93840-54 years 89.1 10.9 1,07455-64 years 94.8 5.2 44265+ years 99.3 0.7 694Total 87.2 12.8 3,662

Table 4.11 Participation in training or educationin past year by British citizenrespondents by age group, 2008

Source: GoWell Community Health and Wellbeing Survey,2008 (sample base 3,662 of British citizens, weighted cases)

Young People and EconomicActivity

The percentages of young people (16-24years) who were not in employment,education or training (NEETs) fromhouseholds where the respondent was aBritish citizen are shown by IAT in Table4.12.

Table 4.12 Percentage of NEETs aged 16-24years in households of British citizenrespondents by IAT, 2006 and 2008

Source: GoWell Community Health and Wellbeing Surveys,2006 (sample base 1,562, weighted cases) and 2008(sample base 1,201, weighted cases)

IAT Year of NEETs (%) Total (n)survey

2006 39.1 192TRAs

2008 34.5 1432006 32.4 136

LRAs2008 32.1 1332006 29.1 333

WSAs2008 21.6 2182006 40.8 375

HIAs2008 33.1 3462006 29.3 526

PEs2008 27.5 3602006 33.5 1,562

Total2008 29.3 1,201

There was a significant drop in thepercentage of NEETs across the IATsbetween 2006 and 2008 (p<0.001), rangingfrom 0.3% and 1.8% in the LRAs and PEs,through 4.4% in the TRAs, to just over 7.5%in the WSAs and HIAs, respectively. This isbroadly consistent with the higheremployment rates seen in 2008 comparedwith 2006. There were also significantdifferences between the percentages ofNEETs by IAT in 2008 (p=0.020), wherebyvalues in the TRAs (34.5%), LRAs (32.1%)and HIAs (33.1%) were substantially higherthan in the WSAs (21.6%) and PEs (27.5%).A similar grouping of the IATs was noted in2006.

77

Discussion

The particular nature of the residentpopulations in the Regeneration Areas(TRAs and LRAs) are revealed in this initialanalysis. The resident groups in theseareas are male-oriented, relatively young,comprised of large numbers of families(and also large families) and largeproportions of immigrant groups. Inhousing terms the Regeneration Areas aredominated by social housing, and familiesexperiencing high occupancy rates. Noneof these characteristics was probablyintended as an outcome for thesecommunities but they have arisen overtime due to the way the housing marketoperates and due to the operationalpractices of a range of agencies. Thepresent profile of these areas raises aquestion for public agencies involved inrenewal as to whether these characteristics(or others) are compatible with the socialregeneration of the communities. Doesplanning regeneration include trying toshape the social composition of places aswell as the physical characteristics?

Other types of area have differentcharacteristics and possible challenges.WSAs and HIAs have large elderlypopulations with a lot of older people livingalone. PEs have large numbers ofyounger adults, but only half of all adultsof working age have jobs, indicating apossible need for more skills training andemployment support in these locations iffuture long-term unemployment is to beavoided.

The intrinsic demographic and housingdifference between IATs could beassociated with the responses given tomany of the items investigated in thesurveys and so could be at least partiallyresponsible for some of the differencesreported in later chapters. Conversely,they might mask some genuine differencesbetween the IATs if their effectscounterbalance those of the inter-IATdifferences. The analyses presented inthis report are broad-ranging and, with theexception of the some of the analyses ofmental health in Chapter 9, do notcurrently take into account the influence ofthese confounding variables (for exampleby standardising for age). A more detailedstatistical modelling of the data is planned.


4

78


Key Points

• The Regeneration Areas have male-dominated populations, with adultmen outnumbering women by 10%.

• The adult population is also relativelyyoung in the Regeneration Areas:around three-in-five adults are agedunder 40, and less than one-in-ten areaged over 65. PEs have an unusuallyhigh proportion of very young adults,one-in-five being aged under 25 yearsold.

• Two of the study area types containrelatively elderly populations with overa fifth of adults being aged over 65 inWSAs and HIAs.

• Immigrant residents are very rare inthree of the IATs (WSAs, HIAs andPEs) but form a large part of theresident population in TRAs (two-in-five being non-British citizens) andLRAs (more than one-in-four).

• Families are more common inRegeneration Areas than elsewherewith around a third of householdsbeing single- or two-parent families inTRAs and LRAs. Larger families(containing five or more persons) arealso more common within TRAs and toa lesser extent in LRAs.

• Occupancy rates (measured aspersons-per-room (ppr)) are high (atover 1.5 ppr) for two-parent families inthe Regeneration Areas and in MSFs,and also relatively high (at 1.3 ppr) forsingle parent families in TRAs andWSAs.

• Regeneration Areas are dominated bysocial housing at present with nine-in-ten dwellings being in the socialsector. Home ownership has asignificant presence in WSAs (half ofall dwellings), HIAs (two-in-fivedwellings) and to a lesser extent PEs(one-in-five dwellings).

• Most men of working age in WSAsand HIAs report that they are working,and half do so in PEs. Only a minorityof men in the Regeneration Areasreport that they are working. Aroundone-in-seven men of working ageacross the study areas report that theyare economically inactive.

• High proportions of adults (both menand women) of working age (40-50%in Regeneration Areas; 20-30% inother areas) report that they areeconomically active but do not have ajob.

• Around 17% of respondents who wereof working age, were eligible for workand not in full- or part-timeemployment or full-time education,had sought work at some point duringthe year preceding the 2008 survey.These figures were higher (over 20%)in the Regeneration Areas.

• The percentage of NEETs in allhouseholds dropped from 34-29%overall between 2006 and 2008, thebiggest falls (over 7%) occurring in theWSAs and HIAs. Broadly maintaininga pattern seen in 2006, percentages ofNEETs were significantly higher in theRegeneration Areas and HIAs than inthe WSAs and PEs.

79

5Housing

This chapter outlines the housing andresidential circumstances in the studyareas, covering four issues:

• Housing Stock: How do the studyareas differ in terms of the types ofdwellings within the housing stock,and the housing tenures available?Has there been much newdevelopment in the past two years?

• Patterns of Residency and MovingHome: Are some areas moreresidentially (un)stable than others?How many people have moved homeover the past two years, or wish tomove home in the future and why?

• Housing Satisfaction and HousingQuality: How satisfied are people withtheir homes and theirlandlords/factors? Have housingconditions, or the quality of homes,improved over time as far as theoccupants are concerned?

• Housing Empowerment: Doresidents (particularly social housingtenants) feel informed and consultedby those responsible for their housing(landlords and factors)? Dooccupants derive a range ofpsychosocial benefits from living intheir homes? (here we use the term‘psychosocial’ to describe potentialmechanisms by which people’s mentalwellbeing might be associated withtheir social environments: e.g. theextent to which people’s homes givethem a sense of empowerment,control, safety, etc).


80


Housing Stock

In this section the five Intervention AreaTypes (IATs) are compared according tothe tenure and built form of the housingstock they contain, as well as looking atthe improvement works carried out toupgrade the housing stock.

Housing Tenure

As Table 5.1 shows, three of the IATs aredominated by social rented housing:Transformational Regeneration Areas(TRAs) and Local Regeneration Areas(LRAs), where almost all dwellings are inthe social sector; and Peripheral Estates(PEs) where four-out-of-five dwellings aresocial rented. The other two types ofstudy area, Wider Surrounding Areas(WSAs) and Housing Improvement Areas(HIAs), are more evenly divided betweendwellings in the social rented and privatesectors, though only in WSAs does theprivate sector form a majority of dwellings.The only type of area with a sizeable non-GHA housing association RegisteredSocial Landlord (RSL) sector, is the PEs.

An attempt was made to ascertain whetherowned homes were ex-council propertiesbut this proved difficult as the council taxregister does not identify ex-councilhomes, and the responses to the surveyquestions on this issue are not clear-cut(due to the issue of first and second-handsales of homes). However, the bestestimate is that in TRAs, almost all ownedhomes are ex-council; in LRAs and WSAsfour-out-of five owned homes are ex-council; in HIAs nine-out-of-ten; and in PEsonly two-out-of-five. Thus, only in PEs hasthe private sector been a significantsupplier of owner occupied homes.

‘Which of the following best describes your home?’…Rented from….; owned…; temporary accommodation…These figures are slightly different to those in Table 4.8. There are two main reasons for this: the council tax register (used forTable 4.8) has some uncertainties and missing data, and is subject to a lag effect. Further, respondents in the survey (usedhere in Table 5.1) may misunderstand their tenure circumstances, especially social renters, and this may lie behind thediscrepancy in the balance between GHA and RSL dwellings in PEs between the two tables.

GHA RSL Temporary Total Owned Private TotalSocial rented/ Private*rented Other

TRAs 89.1 4.1 2.4 95.6 2.8 1.5 4.3LRAs 88.2 1.1 3.1 92.4 6.3 1.3 7.6WSAs 38.4 4.6 0.0 43.0 53.5 3.5 57.0HIAs 48.2 2.8 0.1 51.1 43.6 5.3 48.9PEs 50.8 29.4 0.1 80.3 18.5 1.1 19.6

Table 5.1 Housing tenure by IAT, 2008

81

Dwelling Types

The five types of study area fall into threegroups when looked at by dwelling types(Table 5.2). Regeneration Areas (TRAsand LRAs) are dominated by multi-storeyflats (MSFs). Their surrounding areas(WSAs) and HIAs are predominantlycomprised of houses. PEs are dividedhalf-and-half into houses and flats. BothHIAs and PEs also contain some MSFs.Other notable differences between areasinclude the fact that around a third ofproperties in WSAs and HIAs are four-in-a-block flats (classified as houses as theyhave their own garden); most of the otherhouses in these two types of area aresemi-detached houses, whereas in PEsthe majority of houses are terraced.

Overall, this means that while most peoplein WSAs, HIAs and PEs have a garden touse, only a very small number of residentsin the Regeneration Areas have thisamenity.


*Multi-storey is defined as being in a building of six or more storeys.†Houses include four-in-a-block properties.‡Garden includes own-use and shared-use.

MSFs* Other Flats Houses† Garden‡

TRAs 86.4 11.7 1.9 3.0

LRAs 76.1 21.7 2.3 3.5

WSAs 0.0 25.4 74.5 81.0

HIAs 17.0 15.6 67.3 73.3

PEs 10.7 37.2 51.9 64.1

Table 5.2 Dwelling types by IAT, 2008

5

82


Housing Improvement Works

Over one-in-three respondents (36%)reported that ‘improvement works’v hadbeen carried out to their homes in the pasttwo years. This was highest in LRAs (45%)and in WSAs (39%) and HIAs (38%). Table5.3 shows that over the two years prior tothe survey a little over a third of GHAhousing stock had received improvementworks of some kind in TRAs, WSAs andPEs, rising to half of the GHA stock inLRAs and HIAs. The lowest incidence ofworks was in the Red Road MSFs, whereonly a quarter (26%) of residents reportedimprovement works – this is the areawhere clearance and demolition of theMSFs has been most certain to proceed.The most common improvement worksreported in areas of MSFs was new doorsand locks (this was true for allRegeneration Areas except GorbalsRiverside), whereas in other areas themost common works were newbathrooms, new kitchens and new heatingsystems.

Significant numbers of private homes hadalso been improved in some way, 30% ormore in WSAs, HIAs and PEs; in the firsttwo of these, private sectorvi works arelikely to have been carried out as aconsequence of the GHA investmentprogramme, given the high number of ex-council owned properties in theselocations.

‘Have any improvements been carried out to your home in the last 2 years?’Table and base for calculating percentages omits ‘don’t know’ responses,which totalled 7% of respondents.*Private sector in this and subsequent tables includes both owner-occupiedand private rented homes.

Private Sector* GHA RSL

TRAs 24.2 35.1 17.1

LRAs 24.1 52.6 n/a

WSAs 42.7 36.4 n/a

HIAs 30.4 48.9 n/a

PEs 36.6 33.5 22.4

Table 5.3 Housing improvement works by tenurewithin IATs, 2008

v While respondents were asked about‘improvement works’ it is possible thatthis term could have been interpretedby some people as including repairwork.

vi The term private sector is used in thisreport to refer to owner occupied andprivate rented homes. As Table 5.1shows, the vast majority are in factowned rather than rented.

83

Patterns of Residency and Moving Home


Residential Stability

The five IATs divide into twogroups: the two regenerationtypes, which are relatively unstablein residential terms, and the threeother types of area which arerelatively stable. As Figure 5.1shows, in both the TRAs and theLRAs, around three-in-ten peopleresident in the area have livedthere for two years or less, which istwo to three times as many as inthe other three area types. Theareas surrounding high-rise estates(WSAs) are the most residentiallystable, with almost two-thirds ofresidents having lived in the areafor over ten years; indeed, in theseareas, 27% of residents have livedin the area for over 20 years.

Perc

enta

ge o

f Res

iden

ts

TRAs0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Figure 5.1 Length of residence in the area, 2008

LRAs WSAs HIAs PEs

IAT

11+ Yrs 3-10 Yrs Up to 2 Yrs

‘How long in total have you lived in this area?’

House Moves over the Past Two Years

In the most stable areas, WSAs, 13% ofrespondents said they had moved home inthe past two years (sometime from March2006 to the interview date in 2008), and inHIAs and PEs the figure was 16% and 17%respectively (see Table 5.4). These allequate to annual rates of house moving ofbelow 10%. However, in TRAs and LRAsthe numbers were significantly higher, with30% and 25% of people respectivelyhaving moved into their current homesince March 2006.

In TRAs, the three most common reasonsgiven for having moved home were that:the old home was being demolished (12%of movers); wanting a bigger home (10%);

and wanting to live in a different area(10%). Around 20 other reasons were alsocited for moving home, each by smallnumbers of respondents. In LRAs,demolition was a relatively uncommonreason for moving (3%), as wasaffordability (i.e. the old home was tooexpensive), which was cited by 7%. So, inRegeneration Areas, most house moverswho still reside in the areas do not cite theredevelopment programme (demolition),as the main reason why they movedhome, even though in many more casesthan indicated, redevelopment might wellhave played a part in generating the move.

5

84


As Table 5.4 shows, people livingin Regeneration Areas who hadmoved house report having lesschoice about where they movedto than people living elsewhere.Approximately twice as manypeople in WSAs, HIAs and PEsreported having choice about thehome and area they now live inthan did people living in TRAsand LRAs. This is notunexpected given the reductionin housing stock in RegenerationAreas at this stage in theregeneration process, combinedwith the need to rehouse largernumbers of people as a result ofclearance processes and the useof properties for asylum seekers.The WSAs are shown to be areasof higher demand where largeproportions of new occupantshad exercised choice aboutwhere they live.

When examined in relation to theassessment of positive mentalhealth (see Chapter 9 for a fulldescription), those people whoreported that they had ‘a lot’ ofchoice over their new homeand/or their new area hadsignificantly higher mentalwellbeing scores than those whoreported having ‘none’vii.

‘Has this house/flat been your main address since March 2006?’‘How much choice did you have about the area/home you moved into?’Table shows percentages for those who answered ‘A lot’ or ‘Some’ ratherthan ‘None’.[Statistical significance for differences by IAT on both choice variablesp<0.001]

Moved Into Choice ChoiceHome in About About

Last Two Years Area Home(%) (%) (%)

TRAs 30.5 36.6 35.5

LRAs 25.0 46.2 44.2

WSAs 12.7 83.2 76.7

HIAs 15.9 66.4 67.0

PEs 17.0 67.1 67.5

Table 5.4 Choice about house moves over theperiod 2006-08

vii This analysis did not control for other demographic characteristics. Nonetheless, those with ‘a lot’ of choice about theirhouse move, had positive mental health (WEMWBS) scores higher than those reporting no choice, the difference beingequivalent to around two-thirds of a standard deviation on the WEMWBS scale.

When survey participants wereasked whether they preferred theirnew or old home, the pattern ofresponse differed betweenRegeneration Areas and othertypes of area. In non-regenerationareas, around 70% of movers likedtheir new home better, but acrossthe Regeneration Areas (TRAs andLRAs), this figure was only 45%.

85

House Moving Intentions

Figure 5.2 shows that intentionto move had risen by nearly halfin the Regeneration Areas since2006, so that by 2008 three-in-ten people in TRAs and two-in-ten in LRAs intended to movehome in the next year. Rates ofintended mobility were a lotlower in the other types of areaand had dropped slightly overtime.

Over 20 different reasons forintending to move home weregiven by respondents. Only 8%of those intending to move citeddemolition and clearance as areason for moving in the nearfuture. Reasons for moving canbe classified into three groups:dwelling reasons (e.g. size andtype of property wanted); areareasons (e.g. to move to a‘better area’ or to move back toone’s ‘old neighbourhood’); andpersonal reasons (e.g. for workor health reasons). Table 5.5shows that people’s reasons forintending to move home aresimilar across all types of area:broadly, 60-70% of people citedwelling reasons; 30% cite areareasons; and 20% cite personalreasons. Notable exceptionsare the greater proportion ofdwelling reasons and lowerproportion of personal reasonsin TRAs.


Table shows percentage of those with a mobility intention who cited oneor more of the three types of reason for moving. Respondents could citeas many reasons as they wished.[Statistical significance for differences between IATs in citation of eachtype of reason: Dwelling reasons p=0.090; Area reasons p=0.748;Personal reasons p=0.069]

Dwelling Area PersonalReasons Reasons Reasons

TRAs 73.0 27.5 10.1

LRAs 66.3 25.8 17.2

WSAs 62.0 30.0 17.6

HIAs 62.3 26.1 17.4

PEs 60.7 32.7 19.6

All areastotal 67.5 28.0 14.6

Table 5.5 Reasons for intending to move home by IAT, 2008

Perc

enta

ge in

tend

ing

to m

ove

hom

e

TRAs0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Figure 5.2 Intention to move home, 2006-08

LRAs WSAs HIAs PEs

IAT

2006 2008

‘Do you intend to move home in the next twelve months?’ [Statistical significance for change over time within each IAT: TRAsp<0.001; LRAs p<0.001; WSAs p=0.591; HIAs p=0.015; PEs p=0.208]

5

86


Housing Satisfaction and Housing Quality

Regeneration Areas, where overallsatisfaction rates in the social sectorremained static or fell. The one exceptionto the general situation is in HIAs, wherethe gap between the two sectors hasreduced. Where there is a substantialsample of both GHA and RSL tenants in2008, in the PEs, the dwelling satisfactionrates are very similar between the twoparts of the social sector, namely 83%(GHA) and 87% (RSL).

This section examines residents’satisfaction with their homes, with thehousing services provided by theirlandlord or factor and with any housingimprovement works which had beencarried out. How respondents rate thequality of their homes on an item-by-itembasis is also examined.

Overall Satisfaction with the Home

In both 2006 and 2008 there was adivision between Regeneration Areas andother areas: between 60% and 70% ofpeople were satisfied with their homes inTRAs and LRAs; in WSAs, HIAs and PEsthe rates of satisfaction were between 80%and 90%. Table 5.6 compares housingsatisfaction rates in the private and socialrented sectors over time. It shows that thedifference between satisfaction rates in thetwo sectors has increased over time inmost types of area because satisfactionrates have risen slightly more in theprivate sector than in the social sector.The gap was largest in 2008 in the

Table shows percentages of people who were ‘very’ or ‘fairly’ satisfied with their homes.

2006 2008Private Social Difference Private Social Differencerented rented rented rented

TRAs 65.0 69.9 +4.9 94.1 62.7 -31.4LRAs 76.5 66.1 -10.4 82.0 65.7 -16.3WSAs 88.3 77.7 -10.6 95.9 81.2 -14.7HIAs 92.6 83.1 -9.5 93.4 88.2 -5.2PEs 90.4 80.3 -10.1 99.0 84.4 -14.6

Table 5.6 Housing satisfaction by tenure, 2006-08

87

Within this overall picture, thebiggest change over time wasthe increase in the numbers ofpeople who were ‘very satisfied’with their homes, as shown inFigure 5.3. Although still low,the numbers of people ‘verysatisfied’ with their homedoubled in the RegenerationAreas (TRAs and LRAs) and alsoincreased substantially in allother types of area as well. Thisis probably a reflection of thehousing improvement worksnoted earlier.


Perc

enta

ge ‘v

ery

satis

fied’

TRAs0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Figure 5.3 Change in housing satisfaction (verysatisfied with home), 2006-08

LRAs WSAs HIAs PEs

IAT

2006 2008

‘Overall, how satisfied or dissatisfied are you with your current home?’ [Statistical significance for change over time within each IAT: p=<0.001 ineach case]

[Statistical significance for differences between dwelling types: p<0.001]Analysis based on British citizens only.

Very Satisfied Fairly Satisfied Dissatisfiedor Neither

MSF 18.2 58.7 23.1

Other Flat 29.6 54.7 15.7

House 41.1 53.5 5.3

Table 5.7 Housing satisfaction by dwelling type,2008

As Table 5.7 shows, satisfactionwith the home varies accordingto the built form of the home.High satisfaction (‘very satisfied’)is twice as common amonghouse dwellers than theoccupants of MSFs, whilstdissatisfaction (‘very’ or ‘fairlydissatisfied’) is three to fourtimes as common among flatdwellers (multi-storey or mediumrise) than the occupants ofhouses.

5

88


Satisfaction with Housing Services

Perc

enta

ge ‘v

ery’

or ‘

fairl

y’ s

atis

fied’

TRAs0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Figure 5.4 Tenant satisfaction with home andhousing services, 2006-2008

LRAs WSAs HIAs PEs

IAT

Homes Housing Services

Table includes responses from all tenants, i.e. GHA, RSL and PrivateSector tenants.Figure shows percentage answering ‘Very satisfied’ or ‘fairly satisfied’ tostatements: ‘Overall, how satisfied or dissatisfied are you with yourcurrent home?’ and ‘How satisfied or dissatisfied are you with the overallhousing service provided by your landlord or factor?’

Respondents were also askedhow satisfied they were with theoverall housing service providedby their landlord or factor. The‘overall housing service’ wouldinclude such issues as repairs,housing allocations, maintainingcommon areas, and dealing withanti-social behaviour or neighbourcomplaints. Figure 5.4 comparesthe responses for homes andhousing services for all tenants.This indicates that across alltypes of area, satisfaction withhousing services is typically 15%lower than satisfaction withhomes themselves. Acomparison with national findingsindicates that there may be scopeto improve tenant’s ratings ofhousing services. Across thestudy areas, satisfaction withhousing services ranges from50% to 70%, yet in a recentnational survey of social sectortenants, satisfaction with anumber of housing servicesranged from 60% to 85% for localauthority tenants, and from 70%to 90% for RSL tenants46, bothranges having higher upper endsthan found in the GoWell survey.

89

Quality of Homes

In 2008, respondents rated their homes forquality across 18 items. As can be seenfrom Table 5.8, in the Regeneration Areas,all 18 items were on average rated as lessthan good. The ratings were equally poorin both types of Regeneration Area,though windows were rated worse inTRAs, and internal layout rated worse inLRAs. Over half the items were also ratedas less than good in PEs, though they


TRAsOverall condition

Damp/condensation

Overall space

Storage space

Bathroom / shower

Kitchen

Heating

Insulation

Internal Repair

Internal Decoration

External Repair

Ext. Appearance

Front Door

Security of Home

Internal Layout

Windows

Electric Wiring

Access to Garden or Place to Sit

LRAsOverall condition

Damp/condensation

Overall space

Storage space

Bathroom / shower

Kitchen

Heating

Insulation

Internal Repair

Internal Decoration

External Repair

Ext. Appearance

Front Door

Security of Home

Internal Layout

Windows

Electric Wiring


WSAs

Storage Space

HIAs

Bathroom/shower

PEs

Damp/condensation

Overall space

Bathroom/shower

Kitchen

Insulation

Internal Repair

Internal Decoration

External Repair

Ext. Appearance


Items in Bold: mean rating was <3.50 on a scale of 1 (‘very poor’) to 5 (‘very good’), i.e. mean rating was closest to ‘neithergood nor poor’ (= 3.0). Almost all these items had a mean rating of between 3.0 and 3.5.Items in Italics: mean rating was between 3.5 and 4.0, i.e. still less than ‘fairly good’ (= 4.0).

Table 5.8 Items of poor housing quality, 2008

were not rated as badly as in RegenerationAreas. Only one item was rated onaverage as less than good in WSAs(storage space) and one in HIAs(bathrooms). Therefore, there was a bigdivide in housing quality terms betweenRegeneration Areas and other areas,though PEs also provide poorer housingquality than other places.

5

90


These housing items can be combined intothree groups: overall condition;external/fabric quality; and internal qualityitems, and mean ratings can be computedby converting the response categories intoscores. Table 5.9 compares the meanratings across three tenure groupings:private sector housing; RSLsviii; and GHA.The rank ordering is the same in each case,with private sector ratings being highest andGHA ratings the lowest. Given that GHAowns most of the post-war and system-builthomes in the city, it is perhaps surprising thatthe gaps in ratings are not larger. Whereasfor RSLs, internal quality ratings are higheron average than for external quality, theopposite is the case for GHA stock, and forthe private sector the two are the same.

Scores for each item range from 1 = very poor; to 5 = very good.Excluding two items: dampness (not included in 2006 survey); and garden.

Private RSL GHASector

Overall Condition(1 item) 4.27 3.95 3.59

External/Fabric Quality(6 items) 4.22 3.84 3.64

Internal Quality(9 items) 4.22 3.91 3.57

Table 5.9 Mean ratings for housing quality itemgroupings, by tenure, 2008

viii RSLs include housing associations and co-operatives, i.e. social housing other than GHA.

91


Table 5.10 shows how the mean ratings forexternal and internal items have changed overtime, by dwelling type within each IAT. Thistable averages out changes in ratings acrossall tenures. It can be seen that the biggestimprovements overall are to be found in HIAswhere mean ratings for each type of dwelling,for both internal and external quality, haverisen in 2008 by more than 5% compared totheir mean scores in 2006. This is also truefor three out of four mean ratings in WSAs. Inthe TRAs, there have been increases in thequality ratings for ‘other flats’ (not MSF), withalmost a 5% rise in the mean rating forinternal quality and an 8% rise in the meanrating for external quality.

External/Fabric Quality Internal Quality2006 2008 % Change 2006 2008 % Change

MSF 3.34 3.33 -0.3 3.30 3.21 -2.7

Other Flat 3.50 3.77 +7.7 3.40 3.56 +4.7

House n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

MSF 3.34 3.39 +1.5 3.38 3.33 -1.5

Other Flat 3.42 3.43 +0.3 3.38 3.39 +0.3

House n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

MSF n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

Other Flat 3.71 3.93 +5.9 3.80 3.90 +2.6

House 3.96 4.27 +7.8 3.97 4.24 +6.8

MSF 3.63 3.92 +8.0 3.56 3.97 +11.5

Other Flat 3.79 4.04 +6.6 3.75 3.99 +6.4

House 3.94 4.19 +6.3 3.91 4.13 +5.6

MSF 3.42 3.60 +5.3 3.40 3.49 +2.6

Other Flat 3.79 3.90 +2.9 3.70 3.97 +7.3

House 3.96 4.03 +1.8 3.92 4.01 +2.3

Table 5.10 Change in mean quality ratings, by dwelling type by IAT, 2006-08

TRA

sLR

As

WS

As

HIA

sP

Es

Scores for each item range from 1 = very poor; to 5 = very good.Change is expressed as a percentage of the 2006 score.n/a = cell count is <30.

Satisfaction with Housing ImprovementWorks

Resident satisfaction with housingimprovement works was very high, with90% of those who had receivedimprovement works in the past two yearsbeing satisfied with the works that hadbeen carried out to their homes.Satisfaction was highest in the WSAs,with 58% ‘very satisfied’, and lowest inthe TRAs where 35% were ‘very satisfied’(though overall satisfaction still reached85%).

5

92


Housing Empowerment

This section looks at the ways inwhich housing can empowerpeople. First, people’s viewsabout their inclusion in housingdecision making by their landlordor factor is examined. Second,the various psychosocial benefitspeople may derive from theirhome, such as feelings of controland privacy, are considered.

Landlord/Factor Relations

Respondents (both tenants andowners) were asked whethertheir landlord or factor kept theminformed of things that mightaffect them, and whether they feltthat residents’ views were takeninto account by their landlord orfactor in decision-making abouthousing.

In 2006, around six-out-of-tenpeople in the Regeneration Areaswere satisfied with how they werekept informed about things,compared with seven-out-of-tenpeople in the other types of area.Satisfaction rates increased bytypically 3%-4% in most areas by2008, but in the PEs, satisfactionrose significantly by 12% to 82%(p<0.001), the highest rate ofsatisfaction with being keptinformed in 2008.

In 2006, in all types of area,satisfaction with consultation (i.e.satisfaction that the landlord orfactor took residents’ views intoaccount when making decisions)

was lower than satisfaction with information.Improvements in satisfaction with consultation were,however, greater than in the case of information, andwere statistically significant in every type of area, asFigure 5.5 shows. There were large increases overtime in satisfaction that residents’ views were beingtaken into account in both PEs (+16%) and in LRAs(+20%).

Perc

enta

ge ‘v

ery’

or ‘

fairl

y’ s

atis

fied’

TRAs0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Figure 5.5 Change in satisfaction with landlord/factorconsultation, 2006-08

LRAs WSAs HIAs PEs

IAT

2006 2008

‘How satisfied or dissatisfied are you with…your landlord or factor’swillingness to take account of residents’ views when making decisions?’Table includes responses from tenants and owners (who had a factor).[Statistical significance for changes over time within each IAT: TRAsp=0.004; LRAs p<0.001; WSAs p=0.002; HIAs p<0.001; PEs p<0.001]

93

Psychosocial Benefits of the Home


BENEFIT

Privacy

Control

Progress

Safety

Retreat

Freedom

Status

Identity

QUESTION ASKED

I feel I have privacy in my home

I feel in control of my home

My home makes me feel I am doing well in life

I feel safe in my home

I can get away from it all in my home

I can do what I want in my home

Most people would like a home like mine

My home expresses my personality and values

Figure 5.6 shows the average proportion of people who agreed withthese eight statements in each of the IATs. The rank ordering wasthe same for the eight individual itemsix. The psychosocial benefitswere felt by just over 60% of respondents from Regeneration Areas,but by 80%-90% of respondents in the other IATs.

Respondents were asked about eight psychosocial benefitsthey might derive from their home. The benefits, and thespecific questions asked, are defined in Table 5.11.

Perc

enta

ge w

ho ‘s

trong

ly a

gree

’ or ‘

agre

e’

TRAs0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Figure 5.6 Average attainment of psychosocialbenefits from the home, 2008

LRAs WSAs HIAs PEs

IAT

ix The one exception to this was ‘freedom’, where PEs came second, just ahead of HIAs.

Table 5.11 Definition of psychosocial benefits from the home

5

94


Five of the eight statements werealso asked in the 2006 survey.There was a notable improvementin WSAs, where the proportionattaining these psychosocialbenefits increased by between10%-20% across the two yearperiod; in fact the proportionagreeing that their ‘home makesthem feel they are doing well inlife’ rose by 23% in two years,perhaps reflecting extensivehousing investment activity. In allof the other types of area therewas a mixed picture, with someitems increasing and somedecreasing. Figure 5.7 shows theexperience in TRAs, where feelingsof safety and retreat at homeimproved – possibly as a result ofhome improvements and/orimprovements in the managementof the neighbourhood whilst otherbenefits declined, though not sodramatically.

Cha

nge

in p

erce

ntag

e w

ho ‘s

trong

ly a

gree

’ or ‘

agre

e’

Privacy-10

-5

0

5

10

15

20

Figure 5.7 Change in psychosocial benefits inTRAs, 2006-08

Control Progress Safety Retreat

[Statistical significance for changes over time for each item: Privacyp=0.027; Control p=0.003; Progress p=0.022; Safety p<0.001; Retreatp<0.001]

95

The gap between MSFs and houses as abuilt form is greatest in relation to thosepsychosocial benefits that are more likely toaffect how occupants feel aboutthemselves, i.e. status, personal progressand identity (that is how one’s homereflects one’s personality and values).

But even in relation to some of the otherpsychosocial benefits that lie closer toissues of security - such as privacy, controland safety – there is a significant gapbetween MSFs and houses withapproximately twice as many occupants ofhouses ‘strongly agreeing’ that they derivethese benefits as occupants of MSFs. Forexample, while 15% of the occupants ofMSFs strongly agree that ‘I feel in control ofmy home’, this is true for 35% of theoccupants of houses (the figures for privacyare almost identical).


Do some types of dwelling offer more psychosocial benefits than others?

Note: Table includes responses from British citizens only, to avoid the confounding effect of asylum seekers and refugeesalmost exclusively living in MSFs.1. Dwelling in a building of six or more storeys.2. Includes four-in-a-block flats.[Statistical significance for differences between dwelling types on each item: p<0.001 in all cases.]

Privacy

Control

Progress

Safety

Retreat

Freedom

Status

Identity

MSF1

74.2

73.3

54.2

75.3

71.6

74.4

49.8

56.3

OTHERFLAT

85.0

85.1

71.3

86.4

84.1

84.2

65.6

70.4

HOUSE2

87.4

87.6

83.0

87.7

86.2

85.0

80.4

79.7

DIFFERENCE: MSF TO HOUSE

-13.2

-14.3

-28.8

-12.4

-14.6

-10.6

-30.6

-23.4

Table 5.12 Psychosocial benefits of home, by dwelling type, 2008[percentage ‘strongly agree’ or ‘agree’ with statement ofpsychosocial benefit from the home]

It has already been shown that housingsatisfaction is lower in flats than in houses,and lowest in MSFs. This will no doubtpartly be a function of dwelling and buildingcondition and poorer maintenance of high-rise buildings over time. The 2008 surveyresponses can also be examined to seewhether the different psychosocial benefitsthat people may derive from their homessystematically vary by dwelling type. Inother words, do dwellings such as MSFsuniformly offer less benefit to people?

Table 5.12 shows that there is a consistentgradient across dwelling types with thehighest level of psychosocial benefitsderived by occupants of houses on allitems, and the lowest level of benefits byoccupants of MSFs; other types of flats liesomewhere in between, but are generallycloser to houses than to MSFs in thebenefits they offer.

5

96


Tenure Differences in Housing Responses

In terms of governance andempowerment, the findings for privatesector residents and for GHA tenants arevery similar, with around one-in-five people‘very satisfied’ with how they are keptinformed by their landlord or factor aboutthings that might affect them, and a similarnumber also ‘very satisfied’ that residents’views are taken into account (Table 5.14).However, the results for RSLs in theselocations are lower on both measures.

In order to make a comparison betweenhousing tenures, and in particular betweenGHA and RSL tenants, the non-regeneration areas are examined (as theRegeneration Areas are dominated byMSFs with little housing provision otherthan that by GHA). Combining responsesfrom all non-regeneration areas, Table 5.13shows the pattern of responses to thehousing satisfaction questions by tenure.Satisfaction with the home itself is notablyhigher in the private sector than in eitherpart of the social sector. In contrast,satisfaction with the housing serviceprovided by landlords or factors is slightlyhigher in the social sector than in theprivate sector, and within this issignificantly higher among GHA tenantsthan among RSL tenants.

Table includes responses from all those living in WSAs,HIAs and PEs.Housing services in the private sector may be receivedfrom landlords or factors.[Statistical significance for differences between tenures:p<0.001 in the case of both variables]

Table includes responses from all those living in WSAs,HIAs and PEs.Housing services in the private sector may be receivedfrom landlords or factors.[Statistical significance for differences between tenures:p=0.059 for ‘Informed’; p<0.001 for ‘Take account ofviews’]

Home:

Very satisfied

Total satisfied

Dissatisfied

Housing Service:

Very satisfied

Total satisfied

Dissatisfied

PRIVATESECTOR

42.2

95.2

2.9

15.5

67.2

6.9

GHA

33.6

85.2

10.6

20.5

73.1

8.6

RSL

29.5

85.3

12.2

8.5

70.5

8.8

Table 5.13 Housing satisfaction by tenure,non-regeneration areas, 2008

Kept Informed:

Very satisfied 18.8 20.0 13.7

Total satisfied 77.1 80.6 80.5

Dissatisfied 7.3 7.5 7.3

Take Account of Views:

Very satisfied 21.7 20.1 8.6

Total satisfied 68.9 73.1 63.4

Dissatisfied 9.0 10.5 12.1

PRIVATESECTOR

GHA RSL

Table 5.14 Satisfaction with governanceby tenure, non-regenerationareas, 2008

97

Discussion

The study area types are shown to be verydifferent in housing and residential terms.Regeneration Areas, which are dominatedby social housing tenure and by MSFs, arealso residentially the most unstable. Thisis partly of course a function of how theestates are being used in housing terms(e.g. to accommodate short-term, insecureand vulnerable households), but will alsobe a response to the quality of housingand environments on offer in theselocations. Nonetheless, improvementworks are taking place across all studyarea types, including the RegenerationAreas, and it remains to be seen whethersuch improvements can help generatelonger-term stability. A potential constrainton such a trend might be the absence ofgardens in Regeneration Areas, in starkcontrast to other areas; if access to aprivate outdoor space were to remain anaspiration for most people, thenredevelopment of large parts ofRegeneration Areas may be required.

The findings also help shed some light oncontrasts within the social rented housingsector. GHA properties lag behind otherRSL properties in terms of quality (asassessed by occupants), but this is morethe case for internal quality than externalquality. On the other hand, where the twosub-sectors are compared (based onsufficient sample sizes), namely in non-regeneration areas, tenants’ ratings forlandlord services are higher for GHA thanfor RSLs, with GHA having more ‘verysatisfied’ tenants. This echoes, or ratherpresages, comments made by the housingregulator that ‘GHA has put in place solidbuilding blocks for the delivery of qualitylandlord services. It is successfullychanging the culture of the organisation to

focus on customers and continuousimprovement’47. However, both parts ofthe social sector may face an equalchallenge in seeking to raise customerservice satisfaction rates to meet the levelsof dwelling satisfaction among theirtenants.

Progress is being made, mostly by GHAbut also by other landlords, in enablingtenants to feel empowered in housingterms (that their views are taken intoaccount by landlords). However, inRegeneration Areas there is much moreprogress to be made since in theselocations more than two-in-five people stilldo not hold this view of their level ofinfluence with landlords. But there is roomfor improvement in all locations on thisfront.

The findings also act as a reminder thatdwelling types are important for outcomes.Occupants of flats derive psychosocialbenefits from their homes to a lesserdegree than the occupants of houses, andwithin this, residents of MSFs derivepsychosocial benefits the least. This isespecially true of those psychosocialbenefits that lie closest to how people feelabout themselves (e.g. sense of progress,status, and identity); however, even morebasic feelings of safety and control are feltless strongly by people in MSFs than inother dwelling types. These things areimportant for people’s sense of wellbeingand so it will be interesting to see in thefuture, how the mental wellbeing of theoccupants of MSFs which are retained andimproved rather than demolishedcompares with that of people who moveout to other flats or houses.


5

98


Key Points

• Both types of Regeneration Area aswell as the PEs are dominated bysocial rented housing. The two othertypes of study area are more evenlysplit between owning and renting.However, in most GoWell study areas,the majority of owners are living in ex-council properties, apart from PEswhere most owners live in privatelyprovided dwellings.

• Regeneration Areas remain dominatedby MSFs and a minority have a gardento use, whereas in other locations alarge majority of people have agarden. The majority of homes inWSAs and HIAs are houses, whilstPEs are evenly divided betweenhouses and flats as a built form.

• Regeneration Areas are residentiallyunstable, with few long-term residentsin the area and a sizeable proportionof people (around 30%) having livedlocally for no more than two years.Greater stability should be consideredan explicit objective for themanagement of these areas.

• Significant portions of the housingstock have received improvementworks of some sort in the past twoyears, especially the GHA stock and(largely as a by-product) the privatestock as well. Satisfaction with theseworks was high.

• Housing satisfaction rates areimproving, particularly the numberswho are ‘very’ satisfied with theirhomes. There remain gaps of around

15% in satisfaction rates between thesocial rented and private sectors in alltypes of area, although the ratings aremuch closer in the HIAs.

• In Regeneration Areas, most aspectsof the dwelling were rated less than‘good’ on an item-by-item basis.Similarly in PEs over half the itemswere also rated less than ‘good’.

• Tenants’ sense of empowerment inrelation to their landlords (feeling thattheir views are taken into account bytheir landlord when making decisions)has improved in all types of area, butremains lower in Regeneration Areasthan elsewhere.

• Residents in the private sector are themost satisfied with their homes, buttenants of GHA are the most satisfiedwith the housing services provided bytheir landlord or factor, more so thanprivate sector or RSL residents.

• MSFs are shown to provide lesspsychosocial benefits to theiroccupants than other types of flats orhouses. This is especially true ofthose benefits which impact upon howpeople feel about themselves, such asa sense of progress, status, andreflecting their identity and values. Itremains to be seen whether thiscontinues to be the case wherecomprehensive improvement to MSFstakes place.

99

6

In this chapter the local areas in whichpeople live are examined, including:

• Neighbourhood Satisfaction: Howsatisfied or dissatisfied are people withtheir neighbourhood as a place tolive?

• Neighbourhood Environments andAmenities: How do people rate thequality of their local physical andnatural environment? How attractive,clean and quiet do they find their localenvironment? Do people consider thelocal amenities and facilities in thearea to be of good quality, and dothey use them?

• Neighbourhood Safety and Anti-social Behaviour: Do people feelsafe in their neighbourhoods? Howextensive are problems of anti-socialbehaviour? How good are policingservices in the area?

• Neighbourhood Change: Do peopleperceive their local areas to bechanging – for better or worse? InRegeneration Areas, what are localresidents’ views about change? Doresidents support the demolition oftower blocks in some areas, and theretention of blocks of flats in others?

• Neighbourhood Empowerment: Dothe neighbourhoods in which peoplelive offer them the psychosocialbenefit of feeling they are makingprogress in their lives? Do peoplethink their areas have good or badreputations? Within RegenerationAreas, do people feel informed andconsulted about proposals forchange?


Neighbourhoods

100


Neighbourhood Satisfaction

Perc

enta

ge s

atis

fied

or d

issa

tisfie

d

TRAs0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Figure 6.1 Neighbourhood satisfaction, 2008

LRAs WSAs HIAs PEs

IAT

Satisfied Dissatisfied

‘How satisfied or dissatisfied are you with this neighbourhood as a placeto live?’Figure shows those who replied ‘very’ or ‘fairly satisfied’ and ‘very’ or‘fairly dissatisfied’.[Statistical significance for differences between all area types: p=

<0.001]

Neighbourhood satisfactionrates are reasonably high,though lower in RegenerationAreas than elsewhere. Therewas no significant change inneighbourhood satisfactionbetween 2006 and 2008.

While three-out-of-five people inRegeneration Areas weresatisfied with theirneighbourhood as a place tolive in 2008, this was true offour-out-of-five people in theother three types of area(Figure 6.1). In RegenerationAreas, a fifth of residents aredissatisfied with theirneighbourhood as a place tolive.

For Scotland as a whole,residents’ perceptions of theirneighbourhood as a goodplace to live have also shownvery little change in recentyears. In 2008, 92% said theirneighbourhood was either a‘very good’ or ‘fairly good’place to live. Variations by arealevel deprivation are clearhowever: for the 20% mostdeprived in Scotland, this figurefell to 79%48. This figure iscomparable to that found in theGoWell 2008 survey for non-regeneration areas.

101

Neighbourhood Environments and Amenities


This section examines what residentsthought of their local environments interms of their aesthetic qualities,cleanliness and quietness, and how theyrated the quality of local amenities forchildren and for adults.

Neighbourhood Environments

There have been significant improvementsin neighbourhood environments in manyareas and in several respects, as shown inTable 6.1.

In all area types apart fromTransformational Regeneration Areas(TRAs), perceptions of the peacefulness ofthe local area have significantly improvedbetween 2006 and 2008. However, inTRAs and Local Regeneration Areas(LRAs) only a minority of respondents felttheir environment was quiet and peaceful.This is not surprising given thatregeneration activity is likely to impactupon how tranquil these areas seem.

Parks and open spaces and children’splay areas are rated as being of muchhigher quality in 2008 than in 2006 – theonly exception being no change in therating of play areas in LRAs. It was notedin Chapter 2 that one of Glasgow HousingAssociation’s (GHA’s) wider actionprogrammes has been investing in theimprovement of children’s play areas inrecent years and this could havecontributed to these findings.

The aesthetics of the environment (theattractiveness of buildings and the naturalenvironment) are considered by residentsto have significantly improved in Wider

Surrounding Areas (WSAs) and HousingImprovement Areas (HIAs); this may belinked to the fact that these are areaswhere substantial amounts of housingfabric investment have taken placethrough GHA’s core-stock improvementprogramme (particularly in the case ofHIAs – see Figure 2.2). In PeripheralEstates (PEs), however, there has been nosignificant change in residents’ ratings ofenvironmental aesthetics and they remainrelatively low compared to other non-regeneration areas. In the twoRegeneration Area types, the aesthetics ofthe environment are rated as worse than in2006, again probably reflecting theclearance and demolition of buildingswithout the subsequent rebuilding of newhousing stock yet. Street cleaningservices were also rated much better inWSAs and HIAs than in all other areas.

6

Attractive Buildings

Attractive Environment

Quiet & Peaceful Environment

Parks & Open Spaces

Children's Play Areas

Street Cleaning




Parks & Open Spaces


Street Cleaning




Parks & Open Spaces


Street Cleaning




Parks & Open Spaces


Street Cleaning




Parks & Open Spaces


Street Cleaning

102


Table 6.1 Ratings of the neighbourhood environment, 2006-08[Percentage rating item as ‘very good’ or ‘fairly good’]

TRA

sLR

As

WS

As

HIA

sP

Es

‘How would you rate the quality of your neighbourhood in terms of the following things..?’Response categories on a five-point scale from ‘very good’ to ‘very poor’.n/a = not applicable (i.e. question wasn’t asked in 2006 survey)

2006

48.70

50.80

44.80

39.30

33.40

n/a

51.00

51.30

40.10

44.90

39.20

n/a

60.10

59.10

56.40

51.60

43.40

n/a

65.20

70.50

63.50

50.10

44.00

n/a

56.70

56.00

47.60

41.20

34.70

n/a

2008

23.20

25.30

36.70

60.60

53.60

56.10

33.90

41.60

47.70

63.90

41.80

56.20

70.50

71.50

81.50

74.70

58.60

77.30

76.20

77.90

81.30

74.50

52.80

69.40

54.40

55.10

65.50

59.50

51.80

58.30

CHANGE

-25.50

-25.50

-8.10

21.30

20.20

n/a

-17.10

-9.70

7.60

19.00

2.60

n/a

10.40

12.40

25.10

23.10

15.20

n/a

11.00

7.40

17.80

24.40

8.80

n/a

-2.30

-0.90

17.90

18.30

17.10

n/a

p

<0.001

<0.001

<0.001

<0.001

<0.001

<0.001

<0.001

0.003

<0.001

0.387

<0.001

<0.001

<0.001

<0.001

<0.001

<0.001

<0.001

<0.001

<0.001

<0.001

0.277

0.645

<0.001

<0.001

<0.001

103

Local Amenities

As sated earlier, children’s play areas areconsidered to be of much better quality in2008 than in 2006, reflecting investmentactivity. The survey also asked peopleabout the quality of five other local facilities

and amenities: schools;childcare/nurseries; shops; communityand social venues (not in 2006); and youthand leisure services. The results areshown in Table 6.2.


Schools

Childcare/nurseries

Shops

Youth and leisure services

Community and social venues

Schools

Childcare/nurseries

Shops



Schools

Childcare/nurseries

Shops



Schools

Childcare/nurseries

Shops



Schools

Childcare/nurseries

Shops



Table 6.2 Ratings of local amenities, 2006-08[Percentage rating item as ‘very good’ or ‘fairly good’]

TRA

sLR

As

WS

As

HIA

sP

Es

‘How would you rate the quality of the following services in and around your local area…?’Responses on a five point scale from ‘very poor’ to ‘very good’. n/a = not applicable (i.e. question wasn’t asked in 2006 survey).Base numbers exclude those who responded ‘don’t know’ to particular items.

2006

73.10

54.70

57.50

55.70

n/a

72.90

54.00

52.90

54.40

n/a

74.60

50.80

60.10

44.80

n/a

72.30

47.00

63.00

47.20

n/a

78.40

50.40

48.10

43.30

n/a

2008

74.60

68.10

65.60

39.80

48.70

76.30

65.80

66.70

50.60

56.40

85.50

81.20

81.80

56.70

60.90

78.70

71.80

79.10

50.10

59.90

81.40

71.80

52.40

53.70

54.40

CHANGE

1.50

13.40

8.10

-15.90

n/a

3.40

11.80

13.80

-3.80

n/a

10.90

30.40

21.70

11.90

n/a

6.40

24.80

16.10

2.90

n/a

3.00

21.40

4.30

10.40

n/a

p

0.590

<0.001

<0.001

<0.001

n/a

0.205

0.001

<0.001

0.225

n/a

<0.001

<0.001

<0.001

<0.001

n/a

0.004

<0.001

<0.001

0.220

n/a

0.131

<0.001

0.038

<0.001

n/a

6

104


Schools were the highest rated of the fiveamenities in 2006, and they maintainedthat position in 2008; in the WSAs andHIAs the rating of local schools increasedover time. Alongside this, there werelarge increases in residents’ ratings ofamenities for pre-school children(childcare and nurseries) in all five types ofstudy area. This is consistent withScottish Household Survey findings – in2008, 80% reported being ‘very’ or ‘fairlysatisfied’ with local schools48.

Residents’ ratings of the quality of localshops improved in all types of area apartfrom PEs, where the position was notsignificantly different than 2006. Thelargest improvement in the rating of shopswas in the WSAs. In PEs, shops were thelowest rated of the five amenities.

In all types of area other than PEs, youthand leisure services were the lowest ratedamenity in 2008. Change over time in theratings for youth and leisure services wasmixed. In some areas their ratingimproved (WSAs, HIAs and PEs), while itremained unchanged in LRAs anddeclined in TRAs, where there was a largedrop of 16% in the number of respondentswho rated local youth and leisure servicesas being of ‘good’ quality.

At a national level, in 2008, just over four-in-ten people (44%) living in urban areasreported that they particularly liked theamenities in their local area while a muchsmaller proportion (one-in-ten, or 10%)reported that they particularly disliked thisaspect of their community48.

105

Neighbourhood Safety and Anti-social BehaviourIn this section, residents’ perceptions ofanti-social behaviour, people’s sense ofsafety at night, and the quality of policingservices are discussed.

Anti-social Behaviour Problems

Respondents were asked about elevenpotential problems in their localneighbourhood. Table 6.3 shows themean number of problems identified in2008 and change since 2006. Anti-socialbehaviour problems were reportedly verylow in HIAs compared to other areas, withlittle change since 2006. Anti-socialbehaviour problems were highest in thetwo Regeneration Area types, and a higherproportion of those problems wereconsidered to be ‘serious’ ones. Whereasproblems were most numerous in theTRAs, they had increased the most in PEs,with a very large increase (+57%) in‘serious’ problems identified by residents.


‘Could you tell me whether you think that each of the following things is a serious problem, a slight problem or not aproblem in your local neighbourhood?’11 items were asked about: vandalism, violence, insults and intimidation in the street, racial harassment, drugs, drunkenand rowdy behaviour, gang activity, teenagers hanging around, nuisance neighbours or problem families, rubbish or litter,burglary.

TRAs

LRAs

WSAs

HIAs

PEs

2008

2.99

2.79

2.87

1.92

3.23

SLIGHT PROBLEMS SERIOUS PROBLEMS TOTAL PROBLEMS% CHANGESINCE ‘06

-4.2

-26.2

+5.9

+1.6

+29.7

2008

2.50

2.73

1.31

0.69

1.90

% CHANGESINCE ‘06

+33.7

+24.1

+19.1

+4.5

+57.0

2008

5.49

5.53

4.19

2.61

5.13

% CHANGESINCE ‘06

+10.0

-7.50

+10.0

+2.0

+38.6

Table 6.3 Anti-social behaviour problems, 2006-08

6

106


Table 6.4 shows the most commonly citedproblems, i.e. those problems identified byhalf or more of the residents of each typeof area and, by at least 20% of residentsas a ‘serious problem’. This shows thatHIAs do not suffer any of the listedproblems to such a high degree. In theRegeneration Areas as well as in PEs, amajority of the items are each identified bymost residents as problems. PEs,therefore, suffer similar problems to theRegeneration Areas, though less violenceand intimidation. The problem of drugs ispervasive, spilling over from theRegeneration Areas into the WSAs, wheremost people also reported drugs to be aproblem.

TRAs

Vandalism

Violence

Intimidation

Drugs

Drunk/Rowdy

Gangs

Teenagers

Litter

LRAs

Vandalism

Drugs

Drunk/Rowdy

Gangs

Teenagers

Litter

WSAs

Drugs

HIAs PEs

Vandalism

Drugs

Drunk/Rowdy

Gangs

Teenagers

Litter

Items were identified by at least 50% of residents as a problem and, within that, by at least 20%of residents as a ‘serious’ problem.

Table 6.4 Major anti-social behaviour problems, 2008

The Scottish Household Survey, 200848

shows that, across all anti-socialbehaviours, as areas become moredeprived, perceptions of anti-socialbehaviour prevalence increases. Apartfrom litter, the biggest contrast inperceptions of prevalence between themost and least deprived areas are seen forgeneral anti-social behaviour, in particularrowdy behaviour (41%) and vandalism(39%), compared with 8% and 9%respectively. However, there are no cleartrends in any of the problems with theproportions reporting them being broadlysimilar each year.

107

Feeling Safe in the Neighbourhood

To gauge people’s sense ofsafety, respondents were askedhow safe they would feel walkingalone in their neighbourhood afterdark. This sense of safetydeclined in all types of area overthe two year period, anddramatically in RegenerationAreas (Figure 6.2). In both TRAsand LRAs, only a minority ofresidents in 2008 said they wouldfeel safe walking alone in theneighbourhood after dark.Indeed, a growing number ofpeople now say they never walkalone after dark, ranging from19% in WSAs to 29% in the twoRegeneration Area types. It ispossible that the decliningfeelings of safety at night inRegeneration Areas may berelated to the process ofregeneration, due to thecombination of a fallingpopulation together with thepresence of empty buildingsawaiting demolition, i.e. fewerpeople around and unfriendlysites liable to be the focus of anti-social behaviour, as perceived byresidents.

Although the Scottish HouseholdSurvey (2008)48 does not providea direct comparison on thequestion of neighbourhood safety,it does show that safety is muchlower in the most deprived areas,where half as many people (9%)as across Scotland as a whole(20%) identify safety as one of thethings they ‘particularly like’ abouttheir neighbourhood.


Perc

enta

ge fe

elin

g ‘v

ery’

or ‘

fairl

y sa

fe’

TRAs0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Figure 6.2 Feelings of safety after dark, 2006-08

LRAs WSAs HIAs PEs

IAT

2006 2008

‘How safe would you feel walking alone in this neighbourhood after dark?’Figure shows those feeling ‘very safe’ or ‘fairly safe’.[p=<0.001 for the measure of change over time in the case of all fivearea types]

Policing Services

Given the concerns expressed about anti-socialbehaviour and safety after dark, it is interesting toexplore whether policing in these areas wasconsidered to be a particularly poor service, or to havegot worse recently. Policing was moderately rated byresidents for quality; and furthermore, there was nosignificant change over time in the ratings given topolicing. The highest ratings for policing in 2008 weregiven by residents of Regeneration Areas, where 53%of people in both TRAs and LRAs rated the service aseither ‘fairly good’ or ‘very good’, compared with 49%in WSAs and HIAs, and 46% in PEs. These figures aremuch lower than the ratings given in many areas forother services and amenities like schools, childcareand shops (Table 6.2).

6

108


Neighbourhood Change

In Regeneration Areas and PEs,more people see change in theirareas (good and bad) over theprevious two years than see theirarea as staying the same. InWSAs and HIAs, the majority ofpeople think their area hasremained the same, gettingneither better nor worse as aplace to live over the last twoyears.

In all types of area other thanTRAs, more people in 2008thought their area had got betteras a place to live than thought ithad got worse (Figure 6.3).Moreover, the increases in positiveviews of change since 2006 werelarger than increases in negativeviews of change. PEs areparticularly interesting since theproportion of residents whothought their area had got betteras a place to live doubled from15% in 2006 to 30% in 2008,whereas the proportion whothought their area had got worseonly increased from 13% to 17%.

However, in TRAs, the situationwas different: the proportion whothought their area had got worseas a place to live increased by12% from 2006 to stand at 25% in2008, more than thought theirarea had got better, standing at18% (a similar increase of 13%since 2006).

Perc

enta

ge

TRAs0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Figure 6.3 Perceptions of neighbourhood change,2008

LRAs WSAs HIAs PEs

IAT

Better Worse

‘Has this area got better or worse to live in over the last two years?’Base for percentages excludes those who replied ‘Don’t know’ or whohad lived in the area for less than two years; the latter ranged from 6% ofrespondents in WSAs to 23% of respondents in TRAs and LRAs.

Respondents in the GoWell 2008 survey were morepositive about neighbourhood change than people ingeneral. Looking at Scotland as a whole, theprevailing perception (61%) is that things have stayedthe same in people’s neighbourhoods, while theproportion of people who say things have got worse(19%) outweighs the proportion saying things haveimproved (13%)48.

109

Neighbourhood Empowerment


Perc

enta

ge w

ho ‘s

trong

ly a

gree

’ or ‘

agre

e’

TRAs0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Figure 6.4 Sense of progress through residence,2006-08

LRAs WSAs HIAs PEs

IAT

2006 2008

‘How much do you agree or disagree with the following statement…?Living in this neighbourhood helps make me feel that I’m doing well in mylife’Figure shows those who ‘strongly agree’ or ‘agree’ with the statement.[TRA, p=0.250; All other area types, p<0.001]

In this section respondents’views about the sense ofprogress they derive from livingin their neighbourhood; theirunderstandings of the reputationof their areas; and their viewsabout community involvement inregeneration processes areexplored.

Sense of Personal Progress

A sense of achievement derivedfrom where one lives can beempowering. Thus, respondentswere asked if they agreed withthe statement that ‘Living in thisneighbourhood helps make mefeel that I am doing well in life’.As Figure 6.4 shows, there is adifference between RegenerationAreas and other types of area: innon-regeneration areas, mostpeople derive a sense ofpersonal progress throughresidence in the area, but only aminority do so in RegenerationAreas. The extent of this senseof progress increased in alltypes of area between 2006 and2008, apart from TRAs, wherethere was no significant changeand where only a third ofresidents felt this way in 2008.In the WSAs, where a lot ofphysical improvements to thebuilt environment have takenplace, there was a large increase(of more than 20%) in thenumbers reporting a sense ofprogress through living in theirneighbourhood.

6

110


Area Reputations

How people think other peopleview their place of residence canalso impact upon their sense ofempowerment. Respondentswere asked whether they thoughttheir neighbourhood had a badexternal reputation (among thepeople of Glasgow) and whetherit had a good internal reputation(among their co-residents). AsFigure 6.5 shows, residents’ ownviews of their neighbourhoods’external reputations haveworsened in all types of area. In2008, only in HIAs do a minorityof people think their area has abad external reputation; in allother types of area, most peoplethink this, showing how extensivenegative area reputations arebelieved to be.

At the same time, across alltypes of area, more people in2008 than in 2006 thought thattheir neighbourhoods had goodinternal reputations, i.e. that thepeople who lived in the areathought highly of it (Figure 6.6).However, only a minority ofresidents in the RegenerationAreas thought theirneighbourhoods had goodinternal reputations, comparedwith a majority of people thinkingthis in all other types of area.

The internal and externalreputations are consistent withone another in the case of theRegeneration Areas, where onlya minority of people think their

Perc

enta

ge w

ho ‘s

trong

ly a

gree

’ or ‘

agre

e’

TRAs0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Figure 6.5 Negative external area reputation, 2006-08

LRAs WSAs HIAs PEs

IAT

2006 2008

Those who ‘agree’ or ‘strongly agree’ with the statement ‘Many people inGlasgow think this neighbourhood has a bad reputation’[Statistical significance for change over time: p<0.001 for all area types]

Perc

enta

ge w

ho ‘s

trong

ly a

gree

’ or ‘

agre

e’

TRAs0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Figure 6.6 Positive internal area reputation, 2006-08

LRAs WSAs HIAs PEs

IAT

2006 2008

Those who ‘agree’ or ‘strongly agree’ with the statement “People who livein this neighbourhood think highly of it”[Statistical significance for changes over time for each type of area: TRAp=0.001; All other types of area p<0.001]

111

area has a good internal reputation and amajority of people think their area has a badexternal reputation. In contrast, the tworeputations contradict one another in thecase of WSAs and PEs, where a majority ofpeople think their area has a good internalreputation and at the same time, a majorityof people think their area has a bad externalreputation.

Community Engagement in Regeneration

Within the six Regeneration Areas, residentswere asked for their views on the proposalsfor their areas, as they stood in mid-2008.

In four areas (Red Road, Sighthill,Shawbridge and Plean Street [part of theScotstoun MSF Study Area]) residents wereasked ‘What is your view on proposals todemolish tower blocks around here andreplace them with a mixture of houses andlow-rise flats?’

In three other areas (Gorbals Riverside,Kingsway Court [part of the Scotstoun MSFstudy area], and St Andrews Drive)residents were asked ‘What is your view onretention of the blocks of flats around hereand improving them, rather than knockingthem down?’

The results showed strong support fordemolition of tower blocks in the four areaswhere this was being proposed. Across allfour areas, 73% of residents were in favourof demolition with 10% opposed; the levelof support was high in each of the fourareas, ranging from 70% to 84% in eachsite.

Support for retention of blocks of flats in theother three areas was less overwhelming:overall 45% were in favour of retention, with29% opposed and 25% neutral on the

matter. Looking at the areas separately,support ranged from 35% to 51%, thereforejust reaching a majority in one of the areas.

Respondents in the Regeneration Areaswere also asked for their views on how wellthe community are involved in the processof regeneration.

First, they were asked the following aboutinformation: ‘How well are you kept informed aboutproposals to improve or develop this area?’

Second, they were asked aboutconsultation as follows:‘Are there opportunities for you or for thecommunity to have a say in matters relatingto the regeneration of this area?’

The findings from these two questions aregiven in Table 6.5.


Kept Informed About Proposals:Very or fairly wellNot very well or not at all wellNot aware of proposals or ‘don’t know’Opportunities to Have a Say onRegeneration:Yes, plenty or some opportunitiesYes, but not enough opportunitiesNo opportunities Don’t know

TRAs(%)

38.2

29.9

31.7

32.5

16.717.933.0

LRAs(%)

35.5

33.7

30.8

27.5

20.714.537.3

Table 6.5 Community engagement inregeneration, 2008

6

112


In relation to being ‘kept informed’,residents fall roughly into thirds: a thirdfeel well informed; a third feel not wellinformed; and a third either don’t knowwhat is going on that they should beinformed about, or are not sure whetherthey are well informed or not. Thenumbers who felt well informed rangedfrom 26% in one area to 53% in another,so in none of the areas was there asizeable majority of residents who felt wellinformed about the regeneration of theirarea.

With regard to being consulted, thesituation is similar in that just under a thirdof residents seemed content about theextent to which they (individually or as acommunity) can have a say aboutregeneration matters. This figure rangedfrom 21% in one area to 44% in another; inno area did a majority of people reportcontentment about their opportunities tohave a say. A similar number of residentsfelt that there were either no, or notenough, opportunities to have a say aboutregeneration.

Might Community EngagementReinforce Other PositiveFeelings About theNeighbourhood?

By cross-referencing the responses onthese issues given by people in TRAs totheir responses to a range of otherquestions, we can see whether there isan association between feeling informedand consulted about regeneration andfeeling other positive things about theneighbourhood and its contribution toone’s personal and social life.

Table 6.6 shows how positive feelingsabout the neighbourhood vary accordingto people’s views about communityengagement. In all cases, there is apositive association between a person’sviews about community engagementand the benefits they acquire from theneighbourhood.

The top half of the table shows thatpeople who feel well informed aboutregeneration and who feel that there aresufficient opportunities for themselvesand the community to have a say aboutregeneration are also more likely to feela sense of social inclusion, i.e.belonging to the neighbourhood andfeeling part of the community.

The second half of the table shows thatthose people who feel informed andconsulted about regeneration are alsomore likely to be satisfied with theirneighbourhood as a place to live, and toderive a sense of personal progressfrom living in the area.

KEPT WELL INFORMED(%)

ENOUGH OPPORTUNITIESTO HAVE A SAY (%)

113

The weakest relationship seen here isthe association with neighbourhoodsatisfaction. The strongest relationshipis that with the psychosocial benefit ofpersonal progress through living in thearea, where at least twice as many ofthose people who feel informed and


Notes:Table shows percentages for neighbourhood responses, within each category of response to the twocommunity engagement questions. For example, the first row of the table shows that of those people whosaid they were kept well informed about regeneration proposals (‘yes’ to ‘Kept well informed’), 69.7% alsofelt a sense of belonging to the neighbourhood; whereas only 49.8% of those who did not feel wellinformed, felt a sense of belonging to the neighbourhood.Sample size ranges from 622 to 641 respondents.Table shows column percentages, e.g. the figure in the top left hand corner shows that of those people whofelt well informed about regeneration, 69.7% felt that they belonged to the neighbourhood.‘Kept well informed’: is defined as those people who gave one of the first two responses to this question, i.e.‘very well’ or ‘fairly well’. Not well informed is defined as those who responded ‘not very well’ or ‘not at allwell’. Other responses are not included in the analysis (‘not aware of proposals’, ‘don’t know’ and‘refused’).

‘Opportunities to have a say’ is defined as those people who gave one of the first two responses to thisquestion, i.e. ‘yes plenty’ or ‘yes some’. Not enough opportunities to have a say is defined as those peoplewho responded ‘yes, but not enough’ and ‘no, there are no opportunities’. Those who responded ‘don’tknow’ are not included in the analysis.

Belong to the Neighbourhood: those who responded ‘A great deal’ or ‘A fair amount’

Feel part of the Community: those who responded ‘A great deal’ or ‘A fair amount’

Satisfied with Neighbourhood: those who responded ‘Very satisfied’ or ‘Fairly satisfied’

Neighbourhood Gives a Sense of Progress: those who responded ‘Strongly agree’ or ‘Agree’

Belong to the neighbourhood

Feel part of the community

Satisfied with neighbourhood

Neighbourhood gives senseof progress

YES

69.7

66.1

67.1

47.9

NO

49.8

41.6

60.4

24.2

p

<0.001

<0.001

0.031

<0.001

YES

71.8

69.8

71.4

50.5

NO

51.2

44.8

57.9

20.2

p

<0.001

<0.001

<0.001

<0.001

Table 6.6 Community engagement and feelings about the neighbourhood in TRAs, 2008

consulted derive this benefit comparedwith those people who do not have apositive view of communityengagement.

6

114


Discussion

At this early stage of the regenerationprocess, some of the findings are as onemight expect, with ratings of environmentalaesthetics and perceptions ofneighbourhood change both moving in anegative direction over the period 2006-08in the Regeneration Areas.

However, on other fronts there are signsthat investment activity (by GHA andGlasgow City Council) is having a positiveimpact on residents’ perceptions of theirneighbourhoods. Investment in particularitems like children’s play areas, schoolsand nurseries is reflected in residents’ratings of these items. Widespreadinvestment in areas is also having animpact as shown in the WSAs and HIAswhere large-scale housing improvementsare feeding through to more positiveratings of environmental aesthetics.

On issues relating to environmental qualityand environmental services, it is noticeablethat the PEs perform worse than othernon-regeneration areas. In these respects,residents’ perceptions in PEs are moresimilar to the views of people living in thepost-war estates in the inner city than theyare to the views of people living in otherinner or outer suburban areas. The PEstherefore continue to present a challengefor the improvement of residentialenvironments.

The biggest issue raised by these findingsis the decline in feelings of safety andincreases in perceptions of anti-socialbehaviour problems. Once again, theexperience of PE residents is similar to thatof Regeneration Area residents. The largedecline in feelings of safety at night inRegeneration Areas may be related to

clearances and demolitions, indicating thatthe agencies responsible should considerwhat they can do to make people feelsafer while these processes are going on.

The importance of youth and leisureservices is also indicated: residents’ratings of these services have declined inRegeneration Areas, precisely wherefeelings of safety have reduced the most.This raises the question of whether morecan be done by the partner agencies toassist with youth services during periodsof change, in case regeneration hasnegative impacts upon mainstreamservices and amenities for young people,while at the same time presenting moreopportunities for anti-social behaviourthrough the process of physical change.More generally, however, youth and leisureservices are amongst the lowest ratedservice or amenity in many areas, whilst‘teenagers hanging around’ (a potentialconsequence of poor youth services) areconsidered to be a serious problem in atleast three of the study area types.

The findings on community engagement inregeneration are modest, at best. Only aminority of residents felt that they werewell informed or had opportunities to inputto the process over the period. It isconceivable (although unknown) that alack of declared awareness of, orinvolvement in, regeneration is partly afunction of a lack of sense of influenceover the outcomes of the regenerationprocess, rather than solely a function of alack of efforts to engage with residents.Community engagement is important forreasons of democracy and accountability,and so that people feel that change isbeing done with them (or at least with their

115

knowledge and implied consent), ratherthan to them. It has been shown that apositive perception of communityengagement may have a two-wayrelationship with people’s sense ofcommunity and of neighbourhoodattachment, therefore holding out thepossibility that action on both these fronts(community engagement in relation toregeneration, and wider efforts to supporta sense of community) may have mutuallyreinforcing benefits both for theregeneration process itself and thesustainable communities it seeks todeliver.

Key Points

• Neighbourhood satisfaction rates arehigh, though there is a clear gap of atleast 20% between RegenerationAreas and other areas. This is a gapthat processes of change shouldexpect to close in due course.

• There is widespread improvement inthe ratings of parks and play areas,which could be the result of recentinvestment activity.

• In areas where extensiveimprovements have been made to thefabric of houses, ratings ofenvironmental aesthetics haveimproved markedly.

• Ratings of childcare/nurseries andshops have improved significantly inmost areas.

• Ratings for youth and leisure servicesand for community and social venuesin local areas are much lower thanratings for other amenities. This is thecase across all areas.

• Perceptions of anti-social behaviourproblems have worsened, and feelingsof safety at night time in the local areahave declined; dramatically so in thecase of Regeneration Areas.

• Social housing areas continue tosuffer from poor external reputations,at least in the view of residents, andthe situation has worsened over time.In four out of five types of area, mostpeople think their area has a badreputation across the City.

• Only a minority of residents ofRegeneration Areas felt well informedabout regeneration, or felt that therewere enough opportunities for them tohave a say about processes ofchange.


6

116


This chapter considers residents’ viewsabout the communities in which they live.Communities in deprived areas are oftenthought of as being either ‘strong in theface of adversity’ or weak andsymptomatic of a ‘broken society’.Moreover, attempts at urban renewal in thepast have been said to lead to thefragmentation of communities. Thefollowing aspects of communities arelooked at in turn:

• Sense of Community: Do people feela sense of belonging and inclusionwith the community in which they live?Are people active within theircommunities?

• Community Cohesion: Do residentsperceive that people get along witheach other and trust each other withintheir local area?

• Neighbourliness: Do individualsknow their neighbours and engage inreciprocal relations with their co-residents, such as visiting each other’shomes and exchanging helpfulbehaviours.

• Social Networks: What level of socialinteraction do people have with family,friends and neighbours? Do peoplehave forms of social support availableto help them in times of stress orneed?

• Community Empowerment: Doresidents believe that along with theirneighbours they can, as a community,have influence over key decisions andservices in their area? Do they feelempowered enough to find solutionsto their collective needs or problems?

Communities

117

7

Sense of Community

In both 2006 and 2008 respondents wereasked whether they felt that they belongedto their neighbourhood. The responseswill reflect people’s views about theirhistory (where they come from) and theirfuture (where they are going to), as well astheir sense of whether they ‘fit’ with theneighbourhood (the correspondencebetween their view of themselves and theirview of their social and physicalsurroundings). Table 7.1 shows how theresponses to this question changed overtime.

Sense of belonging remained unchangedin Local Regeneration Areas (LRAs) andWider Surrounding Areas (WSAs),strengthened in Housing Improvement

Areas (HIAs) and Peripheral Estates (PEs),but declined significantly inTransformational Regeneration Areas(TRAs). This is a reflection of theregeneration process which may haveimpacted upon aggregate sense ofbelonging in two ways: a sizeableproportion of people with a local sense ofbelonging may have moved out of theareas in the clearance process; and senseof belonging may have been eroded forsome of those who remain due to theunsettling effects of observing a process ofchange. In contrast, in HIAs there hasbeen a large increase in the proportion ofresidents who feel a strong sense ofbelonging – it is higher here thancompared to all other areas.


‘To what extent do the following apply to you…I feel I belong to this neighbourhood’[Statistical significance for changes over time by type of area: TRAs and HIAs p<0.001; PEsp=0.001; WSAs p=0.345; LRAs p=0.354]

TRAs

LRAs

WSAs

HIAs

PEs

‘A GREATDEAL’

14.7

16.5

36.4

28.2

32.5

2006 2008‘A FAIR

AMOUNT’

55.8

44.4

54.2

59.6

53.8

TOTAL

70.5

60.9

90.6

87.8

86.3

‘A GREAT DEAL’

19.9

18.1

38.6

46.7

39.0

‘A FAIR AMOUNT’

37.3

43.8

50.8

43.2

46.0

TOTAL

57.2

61.9

89.4

89.9

85.0

Table 7.1 Sense of belonging, 2006-08

118


In 2008 two other questions about people’ssense of community were asked: whetherthey enjoyed living in the area and whetherthey felt part of the community. Table 7.2compares the answers to all threequestions. This shows that residential‘enjoyment’ is not entirely dependent onfeeling belonging or inclusion, since therates of enjoyment exceed the other twofeelings across all types of area. In non-regeneration areas, nine-out-of-ten peoplefelt like they belonged, felt enjoyment andinclusion in where they live, the figuresbeing slightly lower in PEs than in the othernon-regeneration areas. Sense ofcommunity is markedly lower in theRegeneration Areas, on all three items,especially inclusion, where 32% fewerpeople in TRAs feel part of the communitycompared with nearby WSAs.

Areas in the study, for 2008. It shows thatthe pattern of responses is the same forboth groups, with enjoyment beinghighest, followed by belonging and lastlyinclusion. Further, non-British citizens feela sense of community far less than Britishcitizens do, and the gap between the twogroups is similar for each of the threeitems. However, looking just at theresponses of British citizens inRegeneration Areas, even they feel thesethings far less than residents in other typesof area (compare the values for Britishcitizens in Figure 7.1 with the values for allrespondents in WSAs, HIAs and PEs inTable 7.2).

Table shows percentages who answered ‘A great deal’ or ‘Afair amount’ to each of the three statements: ‘I enjoy livinghere’; ‘I feel I belong to this neighbourhood’; and, ‘I feel partof the community’.[Statistical significance for differences between area typesfor each of the three statements: p<0.001]

TRAs

LRAs

WSAs

HIAs

PEs

BELONGING

57.2

61.9

89.4

89.9

85.0

ENJOYMENT

70.3

70.6

92.7

93.1

85.4

INCLUSION

52.2

57.0

84.5

87.7

81.2

Table 7.2 Belonging, enjoyment andinclusion, 2008

Perc

enta

ge re

porti

ng a

‘gre

at d

eal’

or a

‘fai

r am

ount

’

Belonging0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Figure 7.1 Sense of community forBritish and non-Britishcitizens in regenerationareas, 2008

Enjoyment Inclusion

Aspect of community

British Non-British

Figure shows percentages of respondents from acrossall six Regeneration Areas who answered ‘A great deal’or ‘A fair amount’ to each of the three statements: ‘Ienjoy living here’; ‘I feel I belong to this neighbourhood’;and, ‘I feel part of the community’.

The lower rates of sense of communitywithin the Regeneration Areas might beexpected given the large numbers ofasylum seekers and refugees located inthese areas. Figure 7.1 compares theresponses of British citizens and non-British citizens across the six Regeneration

119

All three variables were combined into ascore that ranged from 0 to 9, and theresults examined for different householdtypes within each IAT – the results areshown in Table 7.3 expressed as an indexfrom 0-100. This analysis explores howdifferent types of household compare,within the same social context. In everytype of area, it is older people who feel thestrongest sense of community, and innearly every case (apart from HIAs) it isrespondents in family households whohave the lowest sense of community.However, the gap between the two varies:not only are sense of community indexscores lowest in the two RegenerationArea types for each household type, butthe gap between how families feel andhow other types of households feel(especially compared with older people,but the same point applies to the gap withadult households as well) is greatest in theTRAs and LRAs.

People were also asked whether they hadtaken part in any groups, clubs ororganisations over the past year, either foraltruistic or leisure reasons. Although notstrictly confined to the local area, this givessome indication of the extent ofcommunity involvement. While thenumbers engaged in collective activitieshas risen in relative terms, they are stilllow: in 2006 the proportion of respondentsinvolved in collective activities wastypically 3% or 4% in each type of area,whereas in 2008 the reported rates weretypically 8% or 9%, rising to 11% in PEs.


Raw scores range from 0 (answers ’not at all’ to all 3questions) to 9 (answers ‘a great deal’ to all 3 questions).Scores are then expressed as a proportion of the maximumpossible score of 9, to derive an index that ranges from 0 to100.Table shows mean index scores for each household typewithin each IAT

TRAs

LRAs

WSAs

HIAs

PEs

OLDER

71.4

70.2

82.4

83.1

76.7

ADULT

57.1

62.0

74.9

80.0

73.0

FAMILY

52.2

47.0

73.8

77.4

70.9

Table 7.3 Sense of community index byhousehold type, 2008

7

120


Community Cohesion

In this section respondents’ viewsabout community cohesion areexplored. This concerns howmuch one can rely upon co-residents and how much regardyou have for them, living in trust,harmony and mutual reliancerather than existing in conflict andwithout regard for others.

Social Harmony

Residents were asked whetherthey considered theirneighbourhood to be a placewhere people from differentbackgrounds got on welltogether. As Figure 7.2 shows,the responses to this questionwere much more positive in 2008than in 2006, most notably in thecase of the Regeneration Areasand PEs. At the same time, in allthe non-regeneration areas, fewerpeople in 2008 than in 2006responded that their areacontained people from ‘all thesame backgrounds’, perhapsindicating a greater awareness ofsocial diversity within areas. Itmay be that efforts at integratingmigrant and other groups helpsexplain the improvement inpeople’s sense of social harmonyin the Regeneration Areas, but itis difficult to find a way ofexplaining the improvement inother areas.

Perc

enta

ge w

ho ‘g

ener

ally

agr

eed’

TRAs0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Figure 7.2 Social harmony, 2006-08

LRAs WSAs HIAs PEs

IAT

2006 2008

Figure shows percentage who responded ‘Generally Agree’ to thequestion ‘To what extent do you agree that this neighbourhood is a placewhere people from different backgrounds get on well together?’[In the case of each IAT p<0.001 indicating a significant change between2006 and 2008]

121

Informal Social Control

Trust in one’s neighboursincludes feeling that you can relyupon them to contribute to themaintenance of peace andharmony in the area. Residentswere asked if they could expectsomeone in their area tointervene to stop youthsharassing someone in the localarea. Figure 7.3 shows thatpeople’s expectations of informalsocial control are lower in 2008than in 2006 in all types of areaapart from WSAs. In theRegeneration Areas the numbersof people with confidence in theirneighbours in this regard hasnearly halved.


Perc

enta

ge w

ho ‘s

trong

ly a

gree

d’ o

r ‘ag

reed

’

TRAs0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Figure 7.3 Informal social control, 2006-08

LRAs WSAs HIAs PEs

IAT

2006 2008

Figure shows percentage who responded ‘Agree’ or ‘Strongly Agree’ tothe statement ‘It is likely that someone would intervene if a group ofyouths were harassing someone in the local area’[In the case of each IAT p<0.001, except WSAs where p=0.074]

7

122


Trust in the Honesty of Co-Residents

Trust involves not only reliance, asdiscussed above, but also belief in thehonesty of others. People were askedwhether they thought a purse or wallet lostin the local area would be returned intact.The responses reflect people’sperceptions of whether their co-residentsare honest and whether they areconcerned enough about others in thearea to bother handing a lost item of valueto the police or back to the owner.People’s views about the honesty of othersreflect their perception of whether thecommunity matters to other people, sinceanyone for whom the area mattered wouldwish to be honest and have regard for theinterests of others in the hope that theywould be treated likewise, thus improvingsocial circumstances for everyone.

Perc

enta

ge w

ho ‘a

gree

d/st

rong

ly a

gree

d’ o

r‘d

isag

reed

/stro

ngly

dis

agre

ed’

TRAs0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Figure 7.4 Perceived honesty of local people, 2006-08

LRAs WSAs HIAs PEs

IAT

2006 Agree 2006 Disagree 2008 Agree 2008 Disagree

Figure shows percentage who disagreed (strongly or slightly) and agreed (strongly or slightly) that ‘Someone who lost apurse or wallet around here would be likely to have it returned without anything missing’. [Statistical significance for change over time by area type: WSAs p=0.008; for all other IATs p<0.001]

Figure 7.4 shows that trust in the honestyof others is highest, and unchanged overtime, in WSAs. Perceptions haveimproved slightly in HIAs, and stayed thesame over time in PEs. In RegenerationAreas, however, perceptions of thehonesty of others have declined, with adoubling over time in the numbers in bothTRAs and LRAs who disagree that a lostpurse would be returned intact. Very fewpeople in Regeneration Areas in 2008 heldthe belief that a lost item of value would bereturned within the local area.

123

Community Cohesion Index

The three questions about cohesion canbe combined into an index, as shown inTable 7.4. Once again the mean scoresare lower in the Regeneration Areas thanelsewhere but the differences betweentypes of places are not as great as for thesense of community index. The meanscores for cohesion in non-regenerationareas are lower than the equivalent scoresfor sense of community. With regard tocommunity cohesion, older people inRegeneration Areas give similar ratings toother household types. Across all types ofarea, mean scores for families are verysimilar to those for adults and older people– there are few differences betweenhousehold types.

neighbours. For every item, the gapbetween Regeneration Areas and othertypes of area is large, with a 20-30%difference. In Regeneration Areas, veryfew people (a quarter or less) know manyof their neighbours; in contrast, in PEs,most respondents said that they knewtheir neighbours.

Neighbourliness

In the 2008 survey a set of questionsabout relations with neighbours wasintroduced which covered issues ofreciprocity, interactions and perceptions ofneighbours. Table 7.5 gives a summary ofthe responses to the five questions.

The least common form of interaction is toborrow and exchange things with


Combined score ranges from 0 to 12 (most positiveanswers to all 3 questions). Scores are then expressed asa proportion of the maximum possible score of 12, to derivean index that ranges from 0 to 100.Table shows mean index scores for each household typewithin each IAT

TRAs

LRAs

WSAs

HIAs

PEs

OLDER

57.8

58.8

66.5

66.9

65.3

ADULT

57.9

58.4

65.5

68.4

65.9

FAMILY

57.3

54.3

66.3

66.3

63.3

Table 7.4 Community cohesion index byhousehold type, 2008

TRAs36.0

16.8

51.9

42.4

25.9

Visit neighbours’ homes

Exchange things with neighbours

Stop and talk in the neighbourhood

Neighbours look out for each other

Know many or most people in theneighbourhood

LRAs28.8

16.4

49.7

49.7

22.6

WSAs54.5

45.4

79.4

80.8

46.2

HIAs53.4

38.0

75.4

81.5

45.2

PEs57.7

37.2

77.7

78.3

58.5

Table shows percentages answering ‘a great deal’ or ‘a fair amount’ to each of the first fourquestions, rather than responding ‘not very much’ or ‘not at all’. For the last question, percentage is those who responded ‘most’ or ‘many’ to the questionrather than responding ‘some’, ‘very few’ or ‘no-one’.

Table 7.5 Neighbourliness, 2008

7

124


One might wonder why in non-regeneration areas, four-out-of-five peopleagree that their neighbours ‘look out foreach other’ yet fewer than half this numberagreed that people would act honestly withregard to a lost valuable item (seenumbers agreeing in Figure 7.4). This ispossibly because the term ‘neighbours’ isinterpreted by respondents as referring topeople who live very close to them, in thesame close or street, whereas the questionabout honesty did not refer to neighbours,or indeed to anyone in particular, butrather asked for an opinion about thebroader place where people live, termed‘around here’. Therefore, one conclusionis that trust in the goodwill of others doesnot extend very far beyond the mostimmediate neighbourhood within a localityof estate.

The five indicators of neighbourliness arecombined into an index and examined byhousehold type within each IAT in Table7.6. Scores on the index are very low forall household types within theRegeneration Areas, but particularly forfamilies and adult households. In contrast,in non-regeneration areas, families oftendo better than other types of household interms of their experience ofneighbourliness. Across all householdtypes in all areas, the neighbourlinessindex values are modest, never risingabove the mid-50s, indicating that knowingneighbours and interacting withneighbours is not very common or veryfrequent in the study areas.


TRAs

LRAs

WSAs

HIAs

PEs

OLDER

41.5

40.1

57.1

55.5

53.5

ADULT

36.3

35.4

54.5

53.3

53.0

FAMILY

33.8

28.9

56.1

56.3

58.6

Table 7.6 Neighbourliness index byhousehold type, 2008

NEI

GH

BO

UR

SFR

IEN

DS

REL

ATIV

ES

125

Social Networks

This section looks at the frequency ofpeople’s social contacts (not confined tocontacts with local people or within localareas), and the availability of forms of socialsupport – whether people have others nearto them who they could ask for differentforms of help if need be.

Social Contacts

In both 2006 and 2008, respondents wereasked how often they had face to facecontact with relatives, neighbours andfriends. Table 7.7 shows that the proportionof people having at least weekly contactwith each of these three groups has in manyinstances fallen slightly over time. Withinthis, however, the number of people who

reported contact with others on ‘most days’of the week, increased substantially.

In the case of both relatives and neighbours,the number of people reporting contact on‘most days’ was 10-20% lower in each of thetwo Regeneration Area types compared withother areas, but such a gap did not exist inthe case of regular contact with friends. Inall types of area, the proportion of peoplereporting no contact with each of the typesof people increased between 2006 and2008. In Regeneration Areas by 2008around 20% of people reported no contactwith relatives, 10% reported no contact withfriends, and nearly 15% reported no contactwith neighbours. In the case of neighbours,‘contact’ means ‘speaking to neighbours’.


Percentages of respondents reporting different frequencies of ‘meeting up with’ relatives and friends and ‘speaking to’neighbours. [p<0.001 for all area type comparisons over time]

TRAsLRAsWSAsHIAsPEsTRAsLRAsWSAsHIAsPEsTRAsLRAsWSAsHIAsPEs

MOST DAYS

14.39.2

18.816.224.325.222.225.722.332.718.924.335.326.533.1

2006 2008ONCE A

WEEK OR MORE42.450.553.550.646.945.745.448.555.154.348.049.447.155.357.1

NEVER

11.67.11.73.72.64.24.11.21.60.65.25.52.13.20.9

MOST DAYS

23.119.235.732.637.834.926.431.130.139.433.123.843.641.249.2

ONCE A WEEK OR

MORE31.929.930.737.435.040.237.034.944.335.638.632.627.238.233.6

NEVER

20.218.3

5.68.49.08.9

10.79.17.47.6

12.715.1

6.04.05.8

Table 7.7 Social contacts, 2006-08

7

126


Social Support

People were asked whether they hadpeople outside their home – relatives,friends or neighbours – who theycould ask for different kinds of help.Figures 7.5 – 7.7 compare theresponses to these questions overtime. They show that social supporthas broadly stayed the same overtime in WSAs and HIAs (apart from adrop in financial support in HIAs), butall three forms of social support havedeclined in the Regeneration Areasand in PEs, where the largest fallshave taken place in respect of allforms of social support.

Across all areas, practical support isthe most common, followed byemotional support and lastly financialsupport. In the case of each form ofsupport, the majority of people ineach type of area have some supportavailable to them, the two exceptionsto this being that only a minority ofpeople in LRAs and in PEs reportedhaving financial support available in2008. There has been a very largedecline in the availability of informalfinancial support to residents in PEs.

This decline in forms of socialsupport is due more to an increase inthe number of people who say they‘would not ask’ for help rather than tomore people saying they had no-one(‘none’) available to ask. In 2008, inall types of area around a fifth ormore of respondents said they wouldnot ask anyone to lend them moneyfor a few days, reaching a third ofpeople in PEs. In LRAs, a fifth ofpeople also said they would not askanyone for practical or emotionalhelp either.

Perc

enta

ge re

porti

ng s

uppo

rt av

aila

ble

TRAs0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Figure 7.5 Practical support, 2006-08

LRAs WSAs HIAs PEs

IAT

2006 2008

Percentage reporting they had one or more person outside their homethey could ask ‘To go to the shops for you if you are unwell’.[For all area type comparisons over time p<0.001]

Perc

enta

ge re

porti

ng s

uppo

rt av

aila

ble

TRAs0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Figure 7.6 Emotional support, 2006-08

LRAs WSAs HIAs PEs

IAT

2006 2008

Percentage reporting they had one or more person outside their homethey could ask ‘To give you advice and support in a crisis’[For all area type comparisons over time p<0.001]

127


Perc

enta

ge re

porti

ng s

uppo

rt av

aila

ble

TRAs0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Figure 7.7 Financial support, 2006-08

LRAs WSAs HIAs PEs

IAT

2006 2008

Percentage reporting they had one or more person outside their homethey could ask ‘To lend you money to see you through the next few days’[For all area type comparisons over time p<0.001]

Perc

enta

ge w

ho ‘s

trong

ly a

gree

d’ o

r ‘ag

reed

’

TRAs0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Figure 7.8 Perceived influence over local decisions

LRAs WSAs HIAs PEs

IAT

2006 2008

Percentage answering ‘strongly agree’ or ‘agree’ to the statement:‘On your own, or with others, you can influence decisions affectingyour local area’.[For all area-type comparisons over time p<0.001]

Community Empowerment

Both in relation to regenerationand more generally, ScottishGovernment policy aims to enablemore communities to feelempowered, and able to have asay in public services and otherthings that affect them. In theGoWell survey, respondents wereasked if they felt that they couldinfluence decisions affecting theirlocal area, either individually orcollectively. Figure 7.8 shows thatpeople’s perception of theirinfluence upon local decisionshas increased over time in alltypes of area. Having said that,within the Regeneration Areas,only a minority of people in 2008felt they have influence over

7

128


The three questions can be combined into aCommunity Empowerment Index and themean values on this index examined byhousehold type within each type of area, asshown in Table 7.9.

Percentages responding ‘Agree’ or ‘Strongly Agree’ to thefollowing three questions:‘On your own or with others you can influence decisionsaffecting your local area’.‘People in this area are able to find ways to improve thingsaround here when they want to’.‘The providers of local services, like the council and others,respond to the views of local people’.[For area differences on all three indicators p<0.001]

TRAs

LRAs

WSAs

HIAs

PEs

INFLUENTIAL

29.0

30.2

54.0

53.9

45.2

PROACTIVE

27.0

36.2

59.7

56.3

48.2

RESPONSIVE

31.0

39.9

54.6

52.1

45.2

Table 7.8 Community empowerment,2008


TRAs

LRAs

WSAs

HIAs

PEs

OLDER

52.5

54.2

61.5

61.3

55.2

ADULT

44.9

51.7

62.5

60.9

56.7

FAMILY

45.9

46.5

60.7

59.8

58.3

Table 7.9 Community empowermentindex by household type, 2008

decisions affecting their area; this has to beof concern, since these are the areasundergoing the most significant changes.

In 2008 two additional questions were askedabout community empowerment: one aboutwhether the community could be proactive insolving problems and the other about theresponsiveness of service providers. Thefindings for the three questions are similarand are shown in Table 7.8. In WSAs andHIAs, a majority of people feel empowered,but this is not the case in the other threearea types. On all three indicators,Regeneration Areas lag some way behindother areas. Within Regeneration Areas, themost positive answers are given to thequestion about service providerresponsiveness.

The mean values on the index are aroundthe middle of the scale or slightly higher,indicating that not many people chose themost positive response categories in answerto the questions on empowerment.Therefore, the community empowermentindex values are lower than those for senseof community or community cohesion. TheTable also shows that family households feelless empowered than people in other typesof household in many areas, but particularlyin Regeneration Areas (except for feelingmore empowered than those in adulthouseholds in TRAs). However, in PEs,families feel more empowered than othertypes of household.

129

Is Community Empowerment Supported by Other Aspects of Community?


Perc

enta

ge re

porti

ng s

uppo

rt av

aila

ble

StronglyDisagree

Perceived Community Influence

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Figure 7.9 Community indices andperceived communityinfluence

Disagree Neither Agree StronglyAgree

Belonging Neighbourliness Cohesion

Figure shows mean values of the three community indicesfor each response category of perceived influence overdecisions affecting the local area.[For each of the three relationships examined here,p<0.001.]

x The standard deviation is a measure of the dispersion of values in a population or sample. In a normally distributedvariable, one standard deviation from the mean would contain around one third of the cases. A factor which produced achange equivalent to one-third or one-half of a standard deviation on a dependent variable might be considered to behaving an important effect.

community empowerment questions.The two largest variations in meanscores were found between belongingand proactive empowerment (a range of1.47 standard deviations on thebelonging variable) and betweencohesion and responsiveness of serviceproviders (a range of 1.35 standarddeviations on the cohesion variable).

This analysis suggests that broaderactions to foster and support a sense ofcommunity among residents may alsocontribute to their sense ofempowerment in addition to anythingthat is done with regard to formalarrangements for service delivery orcommunity consultation.

Providing an opportunity structure thatenables communities to have a say inlocal matters is obviously the main way ofseeking to develop a community’s senseof empowerment. But communities alsoneed to have the capacity to respond tothose opportunities; this obviously relatesto the knowledge and skills containedwithin a community but it is also aboutthe institution of community. Acommunity has to seem real to people ifthey are to believe in its ability orpotential to exercise power.

To explore this issue the values of thethree community indices - relating tobelonging (sense of community),neighbourliness and cohesion have beenrelated to the responses given to thequestion about communityempowerment: whether the respondentfeels that they, as an individual orcollectively as a community, can influencedecisions affecting their local area. AsFigure 7.9 shows, for all three indicesthere was a positive relationship betweeneach of these three domains ofcommunity and perceived empowerment.In each case, the range in mean values ofthe community indices across theresponse categories for communityempowerment were more than onestandard deviation on the relevantcommunity index (the highest being arange of 1.24 standard deviationsx in thecase of belonging).

Similar positive associations were foundbetween the three community indicesand the responses to the other two

7

130


Discussion

The analysis in this Chapter hashighlighted some areas of possibleachievement in terms of communitydevelopment, and also areas where moremay need to be done.

There have been two notable advances inthe two year period examined here. Thefirst is the reporting of more positive viewsabout social harmony whereby asignificant majority of people in all types ofarea report that people from differentbackgrounds are able to ‘get on welltogether’ in their area. Additionally, thebiggest advances were made in the mostdiverse areas (TRAs and LRAs). Thisprogress could reflect integration efforts inthese locations and more generalgovernment messages about harmony in amore diverse Scotland. Having said that,social harmony co-exists with low levels ofbelonging felt by non-British citizens inRegeneration Areas, suggesting a passiverather than active sense of communitybetween ethnic groups.

The other advance is an improvement inperceived community influence overdecisions affecting local areas, which wasevident in all types of area. Although thiscannot be attributed to specific actions,two of the things that have beenoperational in many of the study areasover the past two years have beenconsultations relating to GHA investmentand regeneration programmes, andcommunications pertaining to communityplanning; but there could be otherdevelopments of which we are unaware.Having said that, only in two types of areais there a slight majority who feelempowered in relation to local decisions,and at most half of the residents in any

type of area feel that public serviceproviders are responsive.

On the other hand, both the regenerationprocess itself and the continuing instabilityof Regeneration Areas may be negativelyimpacting upon communities. Sense ofbelonging and levels of trust in co-residents have declined in RegenerationAreas, where there is a real lack of sensethat the social environment is one whichmaintains moral or behavioural norms.This is also evident in the very low levels ofneighbourliness in the Regeneration Areas,more than in other places. The position offamilies within such areas deserves furtherattention since respondents in familyhouseholds within Regeneration Areasoften report lower levels of community(certainly belonging, neighbourliness andto a lesser extent empowerment) thanrespondents in older or adult households.

More generally, not confined toRegeneration Areas, there is a concern forthe increasing numbers of people whodisplay characteristics of social isolation,so that in many areas one-in-ten or morepeople report never having social contactwith others, and between 20% and 40% ofpeople either do not have access to socialsupport from others or, increasingly, wouldnot seek it. This is a concern incommunities which are disadvantaged andfragile, and where it is expected for peopleto have a range of needs for help andcontact from others in order to cope wellwith life’s challenges.

Such issues of weak rather than strongcommunities are important not only in andof themselves, but also because they mayhave a bearing on community

131

empowerment, one of the overall aims ofGovernment policies for communities. Thefindings indicate that perceivedempowerment is related to people’s senseof community on various dimensions.Therefore the challenge of boostingcommunity empowerment requires notonly specific actions and arrangements forcommunity input to decision making, butalso the development and support ofcommunity capacity more generally, for itsown sake. The routes taken toengendering community empowermentneed to be both generic (aboutcommunities themselves, their vitality, howthey operate and feel on a day-to-daybasis) and specific (about howcommunities are involved in decision-making and governance).

Key Points

• Sense of belonging has declined inTRAs, suspected largely as a result ofthe processes of clearance anddemolition, but also complicated bythe presence of asylum seekers andrefugees. In contrast, sense ofbelonging appears to havestrengthened in HIAs and PEs.

• People’s sense of inclusion andfeeling part of the community, is a lotlower in Regeneration Areas thanelsewhere. This is only partlyexplained by the presence of asylumseekers and refugees, whose sense ofcommunity is lower than others; evenBritish citizens in these areas have arelatively low sense of inclusioncompared to other places.

• Respondents in all types of area havereported a higher sense of socialharmony between people of differentbackgrounds than they did in 2006,particularly so in Regeneration Areas.Whether or not people have a sense ofcommunity, they are reporting morepassive tolerance and civility betweenpeople than before.

• Trust in other people – both in terms ofreliance on others to exercise socialcontrol, and the perceived honesty orregard for the interests of fellowresidents of other people – hasdeclined in Regeneration Areas. Fewpeople in Regeneration Areas seetheir local social environment as onewhich maintains high behavioural ormoral norms.


7

132


• Neighbourliness appears to bemodest in scale across all types ofarea, perhaps reflecting broader socialpatterns where interaction withneighbours these days is not commonor very frequent. Speaking toneighbours often does not seem toget converted into more intimateknowledge or exchanges, or to extendto feelings of trust and reliance inpeople within the wider locality.

• Compared to other people inRegeneration Areas, respondents infamily households seem to have lowerlevels of belonging (sense ofcommunity) and of neighbourliness.

• In most areas there has been a slightfall in the number of people reportingat least weekly contact with family,friends and neighbours, but at thesame time among those peoplehaving regular social contact, moreseem to be doing so on ‘most days’ ofthe week. The corollary is that slightlymore people report ‘never’ havingsocial contact; in the case ofRegeneration Areas, a significantminority of people, 10%-20%, reporthaving no contact with relatives,friends or neighbours.

• The availability of different forms ofsocial support has been fairly stable inWSAs and HIAs, but has fallen in othertypes of area. This is mostly due to anincrease in people’s reluctance of askfor help. The biggest drop in accessto social support has occurred in thePEs.

• There have been improvements in alltypes of area in residents’ perceivedinfluence over decisions affecting theirlocal areas. Despite this, inRegeneration Areas levels ofcommunity empowerment are low ataround a third of residents feeling theyhave any influence. Overall, levels ofperceived community empowerment(combining the reactive and theproactive dimensions of this term) aremodest across all areas.

• Community empowerment appears tobe underpinned by people’s sense ofcommunity more broadly. The morepeople feel a sense of inclusion andbelonging, have social connectionswith neighbours, and trust in themorality and norms of their co-residents, the more likely they are toalso feel collectively empowered.

133


This Chapter summarises how self-reported physical health measures taken inthe 2008 survey compare to those from2006. The 2008 data provides the firstopportunity to look at short term changesin self-reported health during two years ofhousing investment and neighbourhoodregeneration. GoWell’s findings on shortterm health outcomes are expected to besensitive to both the positive and negativeimpacts of ongoing housing investmentand regeneration processes, and lesssensitive to changes resulting from morelong term processes.

This chapter looks in turn at changes inthe following aspects of physical health:

• Self-Reported Health: Overallassessments of current general health,and reports of recent (previous fourweeks) and long term (lasting 12 ormore months) health problems.

• Use of GP Services: How manytimes do people go to see their doctorin a year?

• Health Behaviours: Do peopleundertake healthy levels of physicalactivity, and/or do they engage inunhealthy behaviours like having apoor diet, smoking and drinkingalcohol?

Physical Health and Health Behaviours

134


Self-Reported Health

Respondents reported on current generalhealth, health problems they hadexperienced in the past four weeks, andalso longer-term health problems they hadsuffered regularly over a period of 12months or more. They also stated howmany times they had seen their doctor inthe past year.

Current General Health

Most respondents report that their currentgeneral health is excellent, very good orgood: approximately 80% in 2006 and 75%in 2008. Hence there was a small overallreduction in self-reported good health overtime.

The corollary of this is that in 2006 a fifth ofrespondents reported that their currentgeneral health was fair or poor (i.e. notgood), compared to a quarter in 2008.These findings are close to the nationalfigures from the Scottish Health Survey(2008), where 24% of men and 26% ofwomen rated their health as fair, bad orvery bad49. This is surprising, given thehigher concentrations of deprivation inGoWell areas compared to Scotland as awhole, and the links between deprivationand poor general health.

There were differences between areatypes: particularly concerning femalerespondents, for whom the change inprevalence in reporting of ‘not good’health ranged from just over 0% (womenin Housing Improvement Areas (HIAs)) to a6% ‘increase’ (women in PeripheralEstates (PEs)).

Health Problems

GoWell respondents at each survey wavewere presented with two checklists ofhealth problems and were asked toidentify any problems that they hadexperienced. One listed recent healthproblems (experienced in the previous fourweeks) and included:(a) sleeplessness, (b) palpitations/breathlessness, (c) sinus trouble/catarrh, (d) persistent cough, (e) feeling faint/dizzy, (f) pain in chest, (g) difficulty walking, (h) migraines/headaches, and (i) other pain.

The other listed longer term healthproblems (problems lasting 12 months ormore) and included:(a) allergies/skin conditions, (b) asthma/bronchitis/breathing problems, (c) heart/blood/circulatory problems, (d) stomach/kidney/digestion problems, (e) migraine/ frequent headaches, (f) psychological/emotional, (g) other long term health.

GENDER

Male

Female

Male

Female

Male

Female

Male

Female

Householders reporting no long term

health problems (%)

Mean number of long term

health conditions*

Householders reporting no recent

health problems (%)

Mean number of recent

health conditions*

2006

62.90

58.70

1.43

1.49

69.70

63.60

1.91

1.97

2008

70.20

65.60

1.63

1.65

69.00

63.20

2.06

1.99

DIFFERENCE BETWEEN WAVES

+7.30

+6.90

+0.20

+0.16

-0.70

-0.50

+0.15

+0.02

* Amongst householders who report at least one condition excluding ‘other health condition.’

Table 8.1 Householders reporting no specific health problems or one or morehealth problems (mean average), 2006-08

135

Multiple Health Problems

Table 8.1 shows that householders in 2008were less likely to report having a longterm health condition compared to 2006.This is obviously an encouraging finding.However, Table 8.1 also shows that themean number of long term conditionsreported in 2008 is greater than thatreported in 2006. This suggests that co-morbidity or multiple health problems ismore common amongst thoserespondents who did have healthproblems in 2008, compared to the earliersurvey.

Increased co-morbidity raises thepossibility that the prevalence of specifichealth problems could increase even ifmore people report that that they do nothave any health problems at all. In otherwords, a greater number of long termhealth problems could be experienced by


a smaller proportion of the population. Theproportion of householders reporting norecent health problems changed littlebetween waves but again co-morbidity inrelation to recent health conditions washigher in 2008 (especially for men).

Table 8.2 identifies those long term andrecent health problems (as well as currentgeneral health) that changed significantlyin prevalence between 2006 and 2008(p<0.05). These significant results arepresented by IAT and gender. The mostobvious point to draw from the Table isthat most (n=38) of the significantchanges describe an increased prevalenceof reported health problems in 2008compared to 2006. In contrast there areonly five findings that suggest significantlylower prevalence in 2008.

8

IAT OUTCOME MEN WOMEN

Psychological / emotional (long term)Other health problems (long term)Allergies / skin condition (long term)Not good general health (current)Other pain (recent)Pain in chest (recent)Psychological / emotional (long term)Other pain (recent)Allergies / skin condition (long term)Migraines / headaches (long term)Migraine / headaches (recent)Persistent cough (recent)Sinus / catarrh (recent)Pain in chest (recent)Other health problems (long term)Other pain (recent)Migraines / headaches (long term)Migraine / headaches (recent)Psychological / emotional (long term)Allergies / skin condition (long term)NoneOther health problems (long term)Other pain (recent)Allergies / skin condition (long term)Sleeplessness (recent)Persistent cough (recent)Psychological / emotional (long term)Sinus / catarrh (recent)NoneSleeplessness (recent)Not good general health (current)Psychological / emotional (long term)Palpitations / breathlessness (recent)Faint / dizziness (recent)

%DIFFERENCE

54242

1033

55

3

10354432

7

-5

p-VALUE

0.001<0.001

0.0390.0470.001

<0.0010.0070.003

0.002<0.001

0.026

<0.001<0.001<0.001

0.0450.0010.0140.012

0.002

0.006

%DIFFERENCE

643

-314

646543

-49455

3

75

64

-4-5

p-VALUE

0.0010.0010.003

0.037<0.001<0.001

0.0130.0010.0120.0110.0280.015

<0.001<0.001

0.0070.009

0.031

<0.001<0.001

0.0090.0240.0260.001

136


Table 8.2 Long term, recent and current health problems that changed significantly inprevalence between 2006 and 2008, by IAT and gender

TRA

sLR

As

WS

As

HIA

sP

Es

Higher

Lower

Higher

Lower

Higher

Lower

Higher

Lower

Higher

Lower

2008PREVALENCEHIGHER OR

LOWER THAN2006?

Men Women

IATTRAsLRAsWSAsHIAsPEsTotal

137

In the Appendices of this report a moredetailed table and accompanying chartsshowing all the results from this analysis(i.e. not just the significant findings) arepresented. This shows 100 examples ofincreased reporting of health problems in2008, compared to 44 findings of lowerprevalence (Appendices 3, 4 and 5).

Table 8.3 counts the significant differencesidentified in Table 8.2. It shows that at thelevel of IAT, the trend towards moresignificant increases over time can beobserved for TransformationalRegeneration Areas (TRAs), LocalRegeneration Areas (LRAs), WiderSurrounding Areas (WSAs) and HousingImprovement Areas (HIAs). Only in thePeripheral Estates (PEs) did significantdecreases in prevalence occur asfrequently as significant increases. Thereasons for this are not clear.

From this data it is not easy to makegeneral conclusions about genderdifferences. Four of the five significantdecreases in prevalence affected femalepopulations, whereas the 38 increases

were equally split between the sexes(although findings for men and womenvaried at the level of IAT).

The significant increases in prevalence in2008 tended to cluster around the non-specific categories of health problems(e.g. ‘other pains’, ‘other health problems’and ‘general health’), allergies, breathingproblems and categories that cansometimes be associated with stress suchas psychological/emotional, sleeplessnessand migraines/headaches. Is it plausiblethat regeneration may have contributed toany of this? One might hypothesise thathome improvement work might sometimesrelease allergens or substancesassociated with breathing problems butthere is no physical evidence to test this.It may also be speculated that somehouseholders may have found disruptionsassociated with home improvement work,clearances and demolitions stressful.More detailed analysis of the cross-sectional data and data from othercomponents of GoWell (e.g. longitudinaland qualitative) will help explore this.


MALE53371

19

2008 PREVALENCE HIGHER THAN 2006

NUMBER OF SIGNIFICANT FINDINGS REPORTED IN TABLE 8.2

2008 PREVALENCE LOWER THAN 2006

FEMALE37522

19

TOTAL8

10893

38

MALE000011

FEMALE110024

TOTAL110035

Table 8.3 Summary count of significant changes in prevalence of long term, recentand current health problems between 2006 and 2008, by IAT and gender

8

138


One observation that can be made fromTable 8.1 is that it does not presentnoticeably contrasting outcomes betweenthe Regeneration Areas on the one handand HIAs and WSAs on the other. This setsthese health findings apart from many ofthe housing, neighbourhood andcommunity findings reported in earlierchapters of this report – for which thegeneral trend has been for results thatsuggest HIAs and WSAs have experiencedmore positive outcomes over time than theRegeneration Areas. The difference inresidential outcomes is perhapsunsurprising given the relative popularity ofthe different area types and given that theclearances, demolitions and uncertainty thatTRAs and LRAs experience in the earlystages of transformation may be consideredto be more radical and potentially moredisruptive than the home improvementprogrammes taking place in HIAs andWSAs. At this stage, these differentresidential experiences do not seem tohave occurred in parallel with substantiallydifferent experiences of recent and longterm health problems. However, there is aneed to better understand the potential forcontextual effects to influence healthoutcomes (for example, the RegenerationArea populations are generally younger andmore ethnically diverse compared to theWSAs and HIAs). In addition, there is aneed to further explore possible reasons forthe different health outcomes experiencedby residents of the PEs.

One might claim that the decrease in chestpain experienced by women in both theLRAs and the TRAs provides an exceptionto the observation made in the precedingparagraph (because WSAs and HIAsexperienced no significant decreases).However, caution is advised wheninterpreting this isolated example. By

analysing a list of outcomes rather than asingle primary outcome the likelihood ofincluding findings that are significant simplyby chance increases. So the overall trendsare arguably more informative thanindividual findings, particularly where effectsizes are small and p-values are near to the0.05 threshold. Most of the differencesbetween waves are relatively small (thelargest was 14% but most were <5%). Theoverall trend is that in 2008 reports of healthproblems have increased, compared to2006, despite the fact that proportionallymore people in the later survey said theyhad no specific health problems. Increasedco-morbidity may explain this apparentparadox.

Use of GP Services

Health service use may reflect illnessprevalence but also accessibility of servicesand the willingness of participants to seekmedical help. Its use may therefore beviewed positively or negatively dependingon contexts.

GP use across all GoWell areas did notdiffer markedly between 2006 and 2008.The proportion of respondents reportingzero GP consultations in 12 monthsremained at around 29% for males and 20%for females at each survey. The proportionof respondents attending a GP three ormore times also differed little betweensurvey Waves (men = 37% and 38%,women = 46% and 45%; in 2006 and 2008respectively). Comparing IATs (Table 8.4)the most notable increase in GP use wasamong females in LRAs, perhaps reflectingthe earlier finding (see Table 8.2) that inLRAs, significant increases in healthproblems among females outnumberedincreases among men.

DIFFERENCE

0.3150.007

<0.001<0.001

0.0100.2310.284

<0.0010.2370.347

139

Health Behaviours

Health behaviours may be important asmediators of the health impacts ofregeneration as well as being importantdeterminants of health in their own right.For example one might hope thatimproving the quality of local environmentsmight encourage more people to get outand be more active; or that by improvingself-esteem, efficacy and optimism in acommunity fewer people may resort toalcohol and drugs to ‘self-medicate’ or‘escape’ their problems.

Harmful health behaviours often have areputation for intractability, particularlyamongst disadvantaged populations.They can also be difficult to measurereliably using self-reported measures. Itwas noted that some of the 2006 surveyresponses for self-reported healthbehaviours produced surprising findings –particularly in terms of better thanexpected levels of physical activity, diet,drug and alcohol use. In some cases

survey questions were removed (i.e. druguse), the order of questions changed (i.e.alcohol), or the wording changed – usuallyto ask for more details (i.e. diet andphysical activity) in the 2008 survey. Thefindings between the 2006 and 2008surveys cannot be compared directly ifthey are based on responses to surveyquestions that have been altered.

Physical (In)Activity

The 2008 survey physical activityquestions cannot be compared to the2006 survey. Overall in 2008, one-in-fourhouseholds reported that at no time in theprevious seven days had they walked formore than ten minutes at a time. In twoIATs the figure was closer to one-in-three(30% of respondents from HIAs and 31%from PEs). Nationally, the 2008 ScottishHealth Survey49 found that 20% of womenand 17% of men (aged 16-74 years) had


IATTRAs

LRAs

WSAs

HIAs

PEs

GENDERMaleFemaleMaleFemaleMaleFemaleMaleFemaleMaleFemale

2006

32.023.433.828.325.519.827.117.125.115.7

ZERO GP CONSULTATIONS INPREVIOUS 12 MONTHS (%)

p-VALUE (TOTAL CHANGE INFREQUENCY OF GPCONSULTATIONS)

3 OR MORE GP CONSULTATIONS INPREVIOUS 12 MONTHS (%)

2008

33.224.027.615.424.221.628.222.330.517.6

DIFFERENCE

1.20.6

-6.2-12.8

-1.31.81.15.15.41.9

2006

39.548.834.140.134.543.839.953.535.742.3

2008

36.542.741.054.238.143.839.840.433.143.8

DIFFERENCE

-3.0-6.16.9

14.13.60.0

-0.1-13.1

-2.61.5

Table 8.4 Percentage of GoWell householders reporting no GP consultations or threeor more GP consultations in 2006 and 2008

8

140


not taken any form of physical activity for atleast ten minutes at a time in the precedingfour week period.

Eight-in-ten residents (81%) reportedhaving done no vigorous physical activitysuch as heavy lifting, digging, aerobics, fastbicycling or fast swimming for more thanten minutes over the previous week. Twothirds (66%) of all respondents reportedhaving done no moderate or vigorousphysical activity for more than ten minutes(moderate activities include carrying lightloads, sweeping, or bicycling or swimmingat a regular pace). In comparison, the2008 Scottish Household Survey48 foundthat 73% of respondents had participated inat least one form of physical activity(including walking for at least 30 minutes)in the last four weeks. However, 37% ofthose in the most deprived quintile had nottaken any physical activity at all in thesame period.

A bivariate logistic regression analysis wasconducted to explore reports of physicalinactivity by different population subgroupsbased on GoWell’s 2008 findings. Howphysical activity may be associated witharea type, gender, age, tenure, citizenstatus, household structure, building typeand employment structure was explored. Atable summarising the analysis findings isprovided in Appendix 6. A summary ofthese findings are presented below:• While variation between IATs was

relatively small, physical inactivity wasmost prevalent in the TRAs and HIAsand least prevalent in the WSAs.

• There was a small but statisticallysignificant difference between men andwomen (female householders wereslightly more likely to be inactive, aswas also found in the Scottish HealthSurvey, 200849).

• As would be expected, the likelihoodof physical inactivity increased withage (also echoed by the ScottishHealth Survey, 200849).

• Renters were less likely to be activethan home owners.

• People born in the UK were less likelyto be physically active than asylumseekers, refugees and UK citizensborn outside the UK.

• People who lived alone were morelikely to be physically inactive(particularly, but not exclusively, if theywere elderly). Householders withyoung families were less likely toreport inactivity.

• Living in a house was associated witha smaller likelihood of reportingphysical inactivity compared to livingin the various types of flats (i.e. four-in-a-block flats, low rise flats and multi-storey flats).

• Unemployment and sickness wereassociated with physical inactivity(along with retirement). The ScottishHousehold Survey, 2008 also foundthat nearly two thirds (62%) of peoplewho were physically active in the pastfour weeks reported good health,whereas only a third (36%) of thosewho had been inactive said theirhealth was good48.

Many of the differences referred to abovewere small. The larger differences wereassociated with householders being ofretirement age, or working-ageunemployed and long term sick.

A future GoWell publication will exploredata on physical activity.

141

Eating Habits

Respondents in both surveys were askedto report the number of times their mainmeal came from a fast food outlet over theprevious seven days – so the responses tothis question represent the most consistentmarker of change in population dietaryhabits between surveys. There was a smalloverall decrease in the proportion who ateone or more fast-food main meals in thepast seven days (from 47% in 2006 to 43%in 2008). There were considerablevariations by area type, ranging from adecrease of 10% in the TRAs (from 50% to40%, p<0.001) to an increase of 7% in theWSAs (from 42% to 49%, p=0.007).

In 2008 participants were asked to reportall the portions of fruit and vegetables theyhad consumed during the past 24 hours,in response to the following prompts: • Item of fruit as a snack• Fruit as part of a meal, either an item

of fruit or a heaped tablespoon of fruit• Bowl of vegetable soup• Bowl of salad• Portions of vegetables with a meal

(include baked beans and pulses, butnot potatoes); think of heapedtablespoons of vegetables.

• Vegetable-based meal• Glass of fruit juice (unsweetened)

This list is not identical to that used in theScottish Health Survey49 thereforecomparisons with national figures from thatsurvey should be treated very cautiously.In 2008, 55% of GoWell respondentsrecalled eating at least five portions of fruitor vegetables in the last 24 hours, whereasthe Scottish Health Survey 200849 reports anational figure of 20% for men and 24% forwomen.

8% of respondents reported havingconsumed none of these during theprevious 24 hours (compared to a nationalfigure of 10% for men and 7% forwomen49). The data on respondents whoate no fruit or vegetables have beenexplored using similar bivariate logisticanalysis to that used with the physicalinactivity data. Below is a summary of thefindings (more details can be found inAppendix 7):• Again (as with the data on physical

activity), householders from the WSAswere the least likely to report eating nofruit or vegetables in the last 24 hours.Householders from the TRAs andLRAs were three to four times morelikely not to have eaten fruit orvegetables.

• There was a small but statisticallysignificant difference between menand women (male householders wereslightly more likely to say they hadeaten no fruit or vegetables).

• Participants of retirement age weremore likely to have eaten at least oneportion of fruit or vegetablescompared to the other age groupsalthough the differences were small.

• Renters were less likely to have eatenany fruit or vegetables than homeowners.

• There was little difference comparinghouseholders born in the UK, oroutside the UK (including refugeesand asylum seekers).

• In terms of household structure,people under retirement age who livedalone were the most likely to reporteating no fruit or vegetables (people infamily households - with children -were the second most likely).Pensioner households containing two


8

142


or more adults were least likely. • Living in a MSF was associated with a

greater likelihood of eating no fruit orvegetables, compared to living inother types of flats (particularly four-in-a-blocks) and houses.

• People who gave their employmentstatus as ‘looking after thehome/family’ (referred to in the tableas ‘homemakers’) were the least likelyto report eating no fruit andvegetables. Unemployedhouseholders of working age were themost likely.

The findings on eating no fruit andvegetables identified greater variationbetween sub-groups than was seen forphysical inactivity. Larger sub-groupdifferences were associated with IAT,renting, living alone (<65 years old), livingin a MSF and being unemployed.

Smoking

Self-reported smoking prevalence was lessin 2008 than 2006 (40% and 44%respectively) which mirrors the trend foundby the Scottish Health Survey, 2008. Itwas higher than the national figuresreported by the Scottish Health Survey,200849; (in which 27% of men and 25% ofwomen aged 16 and over reported thatthey currently smoked cigarettes), butmore closely related to the figures givenfrom that Survey for the most deprivedScottish Index of Multiple Deprivation(SIMD)50 quintile (40% of men and 39% ofwomen).

Around one-in-seven smokers in 2008claimed that they had increased theamount they smoked over the last twoyears whereas one-in-four claimed to havereduced their smoking over the same

period. These figures suggest an overalldecrease in tobacco consumptionamongst smokers over time, but nearlyhalf of the smokers in 2008 stated theywould never quit (44%). At a nationallevel, the Scottish Health Survey, 200849

also found that there has been a smalldecrease in tobacco consumption bycurrent smokers in recent years.

Bivariate logistic regression has been usedto explore demographic factors that mightbe associated with being a current smokerusing data from the 2008 survey (seeAppendix 8). It found that:• Respondents from the TRAs were the

least likely to smoke. Respondentsfrom the HIAs were most likely tosmoke.

• There was a statistically significantdifference between men and women(men were more likely to be currentsmokers).

• Older respondents (over 64 years old)were the least likely to be currentsmokers. Smoking was most prevalentamongst older working age adults (40-64 years old).

• Renters were more likely to smokethan home owners.

• Respondents born outside the UK(especially refugees and asylumseekers) were much less likely tosmoke than those born in the UK.

• In terms of household structure,people under retirement age who livedalone were the most likely to smoke,followed by people under retirementage who lived with other adults but nochildren.

• Living in a low rise flat was associatedwith a greater likelihood of smoking.

• Respondents who were on sicknessbenefits were the most likely to smoke,followed by unemployed respondents.

143

Alcohol Consumption

With regards to drinking, 44% ofrespondents reported in 2008 that theynever drink alcohol. A further 24% said theydrank occasionally but not in the last sevendays. The Scottish Health Survey, 200849,reported that 13% of women and 11% ofmen across Scotland did not drink at all.An additional 18% of women and 8% ofmen told the Scottish Health Survey thatthey had drunk less than one unit’s worthof alcohol in the previous week. TheGoWell figures are therefore much higherthan the national estimate. This could bedue to sampling bias or participants’unwillingness to admit to stigmatised orunhealthy behaviours, but if so, this begsthe question - why would people under-report alcohol consumption but notsmoking? The 2008 Scottish HealthSurvey49 also reported that in the mostdeprived (SIMD) quintile, 55% of womenand 39% of men did not drink in theprevious week. In other words, abstinence(at least over the course of a week) may bemore prevalent in Scotland’s deprivedareas – and so the relatively largeproportion of GoWell abstainers may reflectthis wider trend.

Which kinds of people reported recentalcohol consumption and which did not isexplored in more detail using bivariatelogistic regression (see Appendix 9). Thedemographic profile of GoWell participantsappears to contribute to the high levels ofreported abstinence – with nationality beinga particularly important factor. Focusing onwhich kinds of participants are more likelyto claim to be teetotal, it was found that:• Respondents from the WSAs are the

least likely to be teetotal. Abstentionwas most prevalent in the TRAs andLRAs.

• There was a statistically significantdifference between men and women(female respondents were more likelyto say they never drank alcohol).

• Older working-age respondents (40-64years old) were the least likely toabstain. Retirement age respondentsand respondents aged between 25-39years were more likely.

• Renters were more likely to abstainthan home owners.

• Respondents born outside the UK(especially refugees and asylumseekers) were much more likely toreport being teetotal than those bornin the UK.

• In terms of household structure,people under retirement age who livedalone were the least likely to reportbeing teetotal, while people living withchildren were the most likely.

• Living in a MSF was associated with agreater likelihood of reportingabstention from alcohol.

• Employed respondents were the leastlikely to say they abstained fromalcohol. Homemakers and people ineducation/training were the most likely(in the sample, less than two-in-fiveparticipants who said they were ineducation/training were born withinthe UK).

The largest differences were associatedwith being born outside the UK. Refugeesand asylum seekers were especially likelyto never drink compared to those borninside the UK. Living in TRAs and LRAs(areas that include many residents bornoutside the UK) and living in a familyhousehold were also associated with notdrinking alcohol.


8

144


In 2008, participants were asked torecollect their alcohol consumption overthe previous seven days, and this wasthen converted to units. Those whoreported no consumption were asked ifthey drank at all.• 32% (n=1,483) said they drank in the

previous seven days• 24% (n=1,127) said they drank

occasionally but not in the last sevendays

• 44% (n=2,029) said they never drank.

Compared to national averages from200849, the mean weekly alcoholconsumption reported here is very low:nine units for men and two for women.This compares to a national average of 18units for men and nine for women, andSIMD most deprived quintile averages of21 units for men and eight for women.Much (but not all) of this difference can beascribed to the relatively high proportion ofabstainers in the GoWell sample.

To identify where drinking may be aproblem, which kind of GoWellrespondents said they consumed alcohol,and who drank the most can be examined.Figure 8.1 summaries data on thedemographic characteristics associatedwith mean alcohol consumption amongstsurvey participants, who reported drinkingduring the previous seven days. The datasuggest that:

• Overall: Most drinkers (73% of menand 86% of women) reported alcoholconsumption that was within theGovernment’s recommended weeklymaximum of 21 units for men and 14units for women. In comparison, the

2008 Scottish Health Survey49 reportedthat 63% of men and 71% of womenwho consumed at least one unit in theprevious week kept within therecommendations (total ScottishHealth Survey national figures for non-drinkers and drinkers keeping withinthe weekly maximum =70% of malesand 80% of females).

• Area Type: Drinkers from TRAs andLRAs consumed the most alcohol(mean = 19 units per week in eachIAT).

• Gender: Male drinkers reportedconsuming more than twice as manyunits as women during the previousweek (males = 20 units, females = 9units). Corresponding national figuresfrom the 2008 Scottish Health Survey(including only those who drunk atleast one unit in the previous week) =21 units for men and 12 for women49.

• Age Band: Alcohol consumptionpeaked at the middle age band (40-54years = 18 units) and fell most sharplyat the oldest (>64 years = 10 units).

• Household: Working age adultswithout children living at home tendedto drink more (17 units) compared toother types of householder (12-13units).

• Tenure: Unit alcohol consumption washigher amongst renters compared toowner occupiers (renters = 16 units,owner occupiers = 13 units).

• Employment status: Householders infull-time education or training, andhouseholders who describedthemselves as looking after the

How much did people say they drank?

145

home/family reported the mostmoderate drinking – relative toparticipants from other employmentstatus categories. The highest meanalcohol consumption was reported byhouseholders who were on sicknessbenefits (20 units) or unemployed (23units). Employed householdersoccupied a mid-range position (13-15units).

• Citizenship/Nationality: High rates ofteetotalism amongst respondents bornoutside the UK meant that virtually allthe householders who said they drankin the past week where British citizensborn in the UK (n = 1,339). The smallnumber of foreign born residents whodid drink (n= 57), reported similar unitconsumption to the UK bornrespondents (13-16 units).

• House type: Alcohol consumption washigher amongst householders living inMSFs (19 units) compared to othertypes of housing (12-14 units).

Analysis of variance = p<0.001 for each ofthese sets of findings except for tenure(p=0.009) and citizenship (p=0.759).Therefore alcohol consumption variedsignificantly within each of the demographiccharacteristics reported except forcitizenship.

Conclusions

GoWell’s drinkers report consuming onaverage three units of alcohol per weekless than the corresponding nationalestimates of weekly unit consumptionamongst those who drank. Individualcharacteristics of GoWell respondentswhich were linked with greater alcoholconsumption included being male,middle-aged and unemployed/long termsick.

Drinkers tended to report consumingmore alcohol if they lived in RegenerationAreas, MSFs and social rented homes.Householders reporting abstinence fromalcohol also tended to have theseresidential characteristics, which may inpart be explained by the location ofteetotal asylum seekers and refugees.


8

146


Mean alcohol consumption (units per week)

TRAs

LRAs

WSAs

HIAs

PEs

MALE

FEMALE

<25 yrs

25-39 yrs

40-54 yrs

55-64 yrs

65+ yrs

Older

Adult

Family

Owner occupier

Renter

Education/Training

Homemaker

Retired

Employed part-time

Employed full-time

Unemployed

Long term sick

Uk citizen born in UK

UKcitizen born outside UK

Refugee/asylum seeker

House

4-in-a-block

Lowrise flat

MSF

0510152025

IAT

Gen

der

Age

Hou

seho

ldTe

nure

Em

ploy

men

t sta

tus

Citi

zens

hip

Hou

se T

ype

Fig

ure

8.1

Sel

f-re

po

rted

alc

oh

ol c

ons

ump

tion,

200

8 (m

ean

num

ber

of

units

of

alco

ho

l per

wee

k)

147

Discussion

Two years is not a long time over which toexamine health changes. Somepopulation health indicators may besensitive to short term changes. However,many others may take years or evengenerations for their full effects to berealised. This time lag makes it difficult toattribute causes to effects, particularly asGlasgow’s population will doubtlessexperience a whole range of macro andmicro level interventions and changesbesides those that fall within the remit ofGoWell’s study.

The scale and duration of Glasgow’shousing investment and regenerationprogramme also complicates theinterpretation of short term healthoutcomes. Many participants of the 2008survey were at that time caught up in theprocess of change, rather than enjoyingthe benefits of a completed programme ofhome or neighbourhood improvement.For some, the process of change couldmean uncertainty and concern about howfuture regeneration plans might affectthem, especially building clearances andrehousing moves.

Therefore, a longer time span may berequired to identify some of the physicalhealth impacts (should they occur) and toexplore whether population health trendsbecome more strongly associated withdifferent area types. Nonetheless, the datasuggests some changes in the prevalenceof health problems between 2006 and2008.

No obvious explanation for whyregeneration might lead to an increase inco-morbidity as found here presents itself.

Of note is that the health outcomes thatprovided the five significant decreases in illhealth prevalence (faintness/dizziness,pains in the chest and palpitations /breathlessness) can all be symptoms ofheart-related ill health. It was also foundthat long term heart, blood and circulatoryproblems were less prevalent amongstmale and female householders in most ofthe area types at the 2008 survey than atthe 2006 survey – although notsignificantly so. This data could beexplored to see if there are any possibleexplanations for improvements in hearthealth between 2006 and 2008.

Earlier chapters have reported examples ofhow the experience of regeneration hasdiffered across IATs – for example someIATs have experienced large scaleclearances and demolitions while othershave been dominated by housingimprovement investment. Consideringthese different experiences, one might askwhether it would be expected that somehealth outcomes could worsen in somearea types but improve in others. In fact,no examples of a recent or long-termhealth problem increasing significantly inprevalence in one IAT, while decreasingsignificantly in another was found. Thismay suggest that the differentinterventions taking place in each areatype have not led to radically differentshort term impacts on the health ofhouseholders. However, some healthbehaviour and health service usemeasures did fluctuate markedly betweenarea types. It will be interesting to see ifgreater differences between area types areidentifiable in subsequent survey waves.


8

148


Key points

• Some GoWell health measures aremore plausibly sensitive to short termchanges than others: for example thepsychological / mental healthoutcomes may be more sensitive thanmany of the physical health measures.

• At this stage there is little consistentevidence of physical healthimprovement occurring in GoWellareas over time. Most of thecomparisons of illness prevalencebetween the two surveys have foundno significant differences, and most ofthe differences that are statisticallysignificant are still relatively small(≤ 5%). Reporting of co-morbidity hasincreased but so has reporting of norecent or long term health conditions.

• Future survey waves will help explorewhether more substantial changes inphysical health take longer to manifestthemselves in the areas, or if theysimply do not occur (within the tenyear time span of this study).

• Several measures linked to heart-related problems provide some smallbut statistically significant findings ofreduced prevalence over time: thisshould be explored further.

• Although some specific outcomesvaried by area type, the analysis didnot identify health impacts that wereclearly distinctive to differentinterventions and area types. This is

despite the fact that some of the areashave been changing in very differentways (i.e. some areas experiencedlarge scale clearances and demolitionwhile others experienced housingimprovement).

• Overall the findings on healthbehaviours support the view thatunhealthy behaviours are particularlyprevalent in deprived areas. However,some of GoWells most disadvantagedareas contain substantial numbers ofpeople born outside the UK – whotend to report healthier behavioursthan residents born in the UK.

• High levels of self-reported teetotalismare a notable exception to the abovepoint. Relatively high teetotalism maybe a characteristic of populationsliving in Scotland’s deprived areas,particularly when those populationsinclude substantial numbers ofresidents born outside the UK.

• There was some evidence of smallimprovements in health behavioursalthough harmful behaviours mayhave been under-reported at bothwaves.

• Some harmful behaviours such assmoking and low physical activityappear to be entrenched for largesections of these populations.

149

9

This Chapter examines mental health andwellbeing among the study populations,looking at how aspects of residents’mental health have changed across theIntervention Area Types (IATs). Thechapter covers the following issues:

• Mental Health and Quality of Life:Using the SF-1245 survey instrument, alook at the impact of mental healthupon people’s quality of life, in termsof doing their job, how they feel, andhow they relate to other people.

• Positive Mental Health andWellbeing: For 2008, a new scale theWarwick-Edinburgh Mental WellbeingScale (WEMWBS)44 was introduced tolook at positive aspects of mentalhealth, such as confidence, optimismand coping.

• Demographic Influences on MentalHealth: How the SF-1245 andWEMWBS44 measures vary with ageand between men and women.

• Mental Health Problems: Theexperience of persistent or regularpsychological problems over a periodof a year or more.

• Use of Primary Health Care Servicesfor Mental Health Reasons:Speaking to your doctor aboutemotional or psychological problemsis another indicator of wellbeing aswell as being a direct indicator of theimpact of mental health upon healthservices.


Mental Health and Wellbeing

During the past four weeks, how much of the time have you…?

1) Accomplished less than you would like as a result of any emotionalproblems, such as feeling depressed or anxious?

2) Done work or other regular daily activities less carefully than usual as aresult of any emotional problems, such as feeling depressed or anxious?

1) Felt calm and peaceful?

2) Felt downhearted and depressed?

1) Had a lot of energy?

1) Has your physical health or emotional problems interfered with yoursocial activities, like visiting friends and relatives?

150


Mental Health and Quality of Life

In both the 2006 and 2008 surveys mentalhealth was examined through questionsfrom the SF-1245 Health Survey, whichaddress both the hedonic (subjectivehappiness) and eudaimonic (effectivepsychological functioning and self-realisation) aspects of wellbeing.

The SF-12 questions require therespondent to estimate how much time inthe previous four weeks they haveexperienced certain things or felt a certainway. Responses involved selecting the

most applicable of five possible answers:All of the time / Most of the time / Some ofthe time / A little of the time / None of thetime. Four of the six questions aremeasures of negative mental health states,although the responses to all six questionsare subsequently ordered appropriately sothat a higher score represents better (orless poor) mental health. The sixquestions are grouped into four mentalhealth sub-scales as shown in Table 9.1.Each of these scales is then converted to avalue between 0 and 100.

SUB-SCALE

Role Emotional

Mental Health

Vitality

SocialFunctioning

Table 9.1 Construction of the SF-12 Mental Health sub-scales

151

Role Emotional

The Role Emotional scaleindicates how well people copewith their daily tasks and activitiesin the face of possible mentalhealth problems (a eudaimonicaspect of mental health).

In 2008, the scores weregenerally high (around 83 out of apossible 100, overall), indicatinggood mental health in this respect(Figure 9.1). The scores rangedfrom the highest value of 85 in theTransformational RegenerationAreas (TRAs), through thePeripheral Estates (PEs), LocalRegeneration Areas (LRAs) andHousing Improvement Areas(HIAs), to the lowest value of 80in the Wider Surrounding Areas(WSAs). The difference betweenthe TRAs and WSAs wasstatistically significant (p=0.021).

The change in scores between2006 and 2008 reveals twostriking trends. First, there was asignificant increase ofapproximately 5.5 units onaverage among residents of TRAsand LRAs (p<0.001). Conversely,in the other three IATs, there wasa small (<2.8 units), though notsignificant, decrease (p=0.072) inthis measure. Consequently, in2008, the Role Emotional scoresfor the TRAs and LRAs appear tohave overtaken those of theWSAs and HIAs.


Rol

e Em

otio

nal S

core

TRAs0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Figure 9.1 Mean Role Emotional score by IAT, 2006-08

LRAs WSAs HIAs PEs

IAT

2006 2008

Score based on responses to two questions: “During the past four weeks,how much of the time have you…” (1) “accomplished less than you wouldlike as a result of any emotional problems, such as feeling depressed oranxious?” and (2) “done work or other regular daily activities less carefullythan usual as a result of any emotional problems, such as feelingdepressed or anxious?”[Change over time: TRAs and LRAs, p<0.001; All other Area Types,p=0.072]

9

152


Mental Health

The Mental Health scalemeasures respondents’perceptions of their own recentstate of mind.

Scores were generally quite high(69, overall), indicating fairly goodhealth with respect to thiscomponent (Figure 9.2), althoughthe values were consistently lowerthan for the Role Emotional scale.The highest score was in theLRAs (around 71), with all otherIATs scoring almost as highly,except for the WSAs, which, as inthe case of the Role Emotionalscale, was significantly lower withits score of 67 (p=0.13).

The pattern is also similar to thatfor the Role Emotional scale withrespect to the change in theMental Health score over time forthe separate IATs. The averagemeasure for the TRAs and LRAsincreased significantly by about3.5 units from 2006 to 2008(p<0.001), whereas in the WSAsit fell significantly by almost 5units to 67 (p<0.001) and itremained largely unchanged inthe HIAs and PEs.

As a result of these relative shiftsin the mean measurements overtime, in 2008, the Mental Healthscores for the TRAs and LRAshad slightly overtaken those ofthe other three IATs.

Men

tal H

ealth

Sco

re

TRAs0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Figure 9.2 Mean Mental Health score by IAT, 2006-08

LRAs WSAs HIAs PEs

IAT

2006 2008

Score based on responses to two questions: “During the past four weeks,how much of the time have you…” (1) felt calm and peaceful?” and (2)“felt downhearted and depressed?”[Change over time: TRAs, LRAs and WSAs, p<0.001; HIAs and PEs,p>0.500]

153

Vitality

Vitality can be considered asanother hedonic component ofmental wellbeing. People whoare in good mental health will feelmore energised than people inpoor mental health.

Average values for vitality werequite low in 2008, indicatingrelatively poor health with respectto this component (Figure 9.3).Only the PEs reached the upperhalf of the scale, at 54 units,followed by the HIAs, LRAs, TRAsand WSAs (where the averagescore was only 44). These werethe lowest values of all the fourmental health scales in the SF-12questionnaire. The differencesbetween the IATs are significant in2008 (p<0.001), with the PEs,LRAs and WSAs being distinctfrom one another.

The pattern of change in vitality isvery different from the other threemental health scales of the SF-1245 Health Survey. All IATsexhibited significant deteriorationsin average vitality between 2006and 2008 (p<0.001). Thedecreases were amongst thelargest seen of all the fourcomponent mental healthmeasures. In the case of theWSAs there was a drop of almost20 units. LRAs and TRAs hadfalls of 14 and 12 units,respectively, while even in theHIAs and PEs there was adecrease of around three units.


Vita

lity

Scor

e

TRAs0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Figure 9.3 Mean Vitality score by IAT, 2006-08

LRAs WSAs HIAs PEs

IAT

2006 2008

Score based on question “During the past four weeks, how much of thetime have you had a lot of energy?”[Change over time: All area Types, p<0.001]

9

154


Social Functioning

The final SF-1245 scale pertainingto mental health indicates theextent to which people’s habitualsocial activity is affected by theirphysical or emotional health.While there may be a connectionbetween the two, it should beremembered that the changesmeasured by this scale may bepartly attributable to the state ofpeople’s physical rather than, oras well as, mental health.

Average values were high in 2008,between 71 (WSAs) and around80 (TRAs and LRAs), indicatinggood health with respect to thiscomponent (Figure 9.4). Scoresin the TRAs and LRAs weresignificantly higher than the otherthree IATs (p<0.001). Thesevalues lie between those of theRole Emotional and Mental Healthscales.

The pattern of change over time issimilar to that seen in the RoleEmotional and Mental Healthmeasures. The TRAs and LRAsshowed an increase in theaverage score (2.3 and 5.5 units,respectively; significant only forLRAs (p<0.001)), while the otherIATs experienced substantial dropsin their scores (p<0.001 in allcases). Once again, the greatestdecline was seen in the WSAs. Asa result of these relative changesin the mean scores over time, theSocial Functioning scores for theTRAs and LRAs were higher thanthose of the other three IATs in2008.

Soci

al F

unct

ioni

ng S

core

TRAs0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Figure 9.4 Mean Social Functioning score by IAT,2006-08

LRAs WSAs HIAs PEs

IAT

2006 2008

Score based on question “During the past four weeks, how much of thetime has your physical health or emotional problems interfered with yoursocial activities, like visiting friends and relatives?”[Change over time: LRAs, WSAs, HIAs and PEs, p<0.00; TRAs, p=0.063]

Looking at how the WEMWBS scale variesamong the IATs in 2008 (Figure 9.5); it wasfound that all IATs have mean scores in themiddle-upper part of the scale, indicatingreasonably good positive mental health inthe overall population. The mean scoresall fall within a fairly narrow range (3.7points), but the differences are statisticallysignificant (p<0.001). Average scoreswere lowest in the TRAs (49.9) and LRAs(50.7) and highest in the HIAs (53.5). Thismirrors the higher prevalence andseriousness of long-term mental healthconditions noted in the RegenerationAreas. Considering the range of valuesaround the means, the poorest scorestended to be found amongst respondentsin the Regeneration Areas: 32% and 25%of all the respondents in the lowest decile(with scores of < 38) were in the TRAs andLRAs, respectively. Conversely, 29% and24% of the scores in the top decile (>66)were recorded by residents of the HIAsand PEs, respectively.

155

Positive Mental Health and Wellbeing


Item (Over the past two weeks…)

1) I’ve been feeling optimisticabout the future

2) I’ve been feeling useful3) I’ve been feeling relaxed4) I’ve been feeling interested

in other people5) I’ve had energy to spare6) I’ve been dealing with

problems well7) I’ve been thinking clearly8) I’ve been feeling good

about myself9) I’ve been feeling close to

other people10) I’ve been feeling confident11) I’ve been able to make up

my own mind about things12) I’ve been feeling loved13) I’ve been interested in new

things14) I’ve been feeling cheerful

ASPECT

Optimism

UtilityRelaxationInterest inothersVitalityCoping

ClaritySelf Esteem

Closeness

ConfidenceDecision-makingLoveInterest inthingsCheer

Table 9.2 WEMWBS positive mentalhealth scale

There is increasing interest in positivemental health, that is, in how a positivepsychological perspective can contributeto wellbeing, not merely the absence ofnegative mental health (or mental illness).

In 2008, new questions on positive mentalhealth: the Warwick-Edinburgh MentalWellbeing Scale (WEMWBS)44 wereincluded in the survey. This new scale isderived from ordered responses to a set of14 positively phrased statements abouthedonic (subjective happiness) andeudaimonic (effective psychologicalfunctioning) aspects of mental health. Itsconstruction is given in Table 9.2.

Responses are on a 5-point scale, from “none of the time”(1) to “all of the time” (5), which are summed to give anaggregate score between 14 and 70.

WEM

WB

S Sc

ore

TRAs14

22

30

38

46

54

62

70

Figure 9.5 Mean WEMWBS scores ofpositive mental health, 2008

LRAs WSAs HIAs PEs

IATs

Aggregate score based on 14 questions (see Table 9.2),and can range between 14 and 70.[Differences between area types, p<0.001]

9

156


The WEMWBS scale is a valuableaddition to the outcome measuresof health and wellbeing and howthese scores change against thebackground of regeneration activitywill be followed through subsequentsurvey waves. Furthermore,WEMWBS is promoted by theScottish Government and is beingemployed in an increasing numberof studies44. This means that, intime, the results from GoWell will beable to be compared with those ofother studies.

Demographic Influences on Mental Health

As seen in Chapter 4, the populations of the IATsare comprised of different distributions of age-groups and gender. It is therefore conceivable thatsome of the differences in the mental healthmeasures noted between the IATs may be due inpart to demographic features of the areas ratherthan the nature of the IATs themselves (for example,proportionally more older people live in HIAs thanin TRAs). By examining each of the five mentalhealth scores with respect to age, gender and IATsimultaneously, which of these variables isresponsible for the observed associations can beexplored. The average (mean) scores for sixcombinations of gender and age group (18-39, 40-59 and 60+ years) by IAT in 2008 only are shown inTable 9.3.

Analyses of variance reveal some differentrelationships between the distinct mental healthmeasures and the age, sex and location ofrespondents.

In the case of the SF-12 Role Emotional score, thedifferences in the means can be ascribed to theeffect of age, with 18-39 year olds generally scoringmore highly than the other two older groups(p<0.001), although this trend was not consistentacross all IATs. There was no significant differencebetween the means of men and women.

It can also be argued that the IAT is not significantlyassociated with the SF-12 Mental Health score,since the observed differences in the means arebetter explained by the significant differencesbetween, firstly age groups and secondly gender:typically, the oldest age group had the highestscores, while those aged between 40 and 59 yearshad the lowest (p<0.001). Men had higher scoresthan women (p=0.023).

157


Male

Female

Male

Female

Male

Female

Male

Female

Male

Female

WEMWBSSCORE

51.249.049.349.947.948.552.550.050.450.547.449.054.851.750.551.951.549.955.952.050.055.252.150.855.150.751.252.350.249.8

SF-12 SOCIAL

FUNCTIONING

80.477.076.578.874.383.078.973.077.381.372.178.469.868.370.266.073.377.274.372.873.478.473.876.079.075.477.877.272.378.8

SF-12 VITALITY

52.046.840.048.444.030.854.149.436.348.940.734.352.847.238.150.044.832.453.045.340.050.847.143.064.049.439.555.544.341.6

SF-12 MENTALHEALTH

69.070.171.866.464.773.571.868.775.069.363.773.569.466.366.862.069.470.169.667.669.368.367.171.473.666.272.369.166.469.9

SF-12 ROLE

EMOTIONAL

86.579.981.585.579.586.285.177.788.381.876.380.783.775.378.880.979.381.886.578.577.088.880.379.789.078.273.486.474.979.9

AGE GROUP(YEARS)GENDERIAT

18-3940-5960+

18-3940-5960+

18-3940-5960+

18-3940-5960+

18-3940-5960+

18-3940-5960+

18-3940-5960+

18-3940-5960+

18-3940-5960+

18-3940-5960+

Table 9.3 Mean Mental Health scores by gender and age for each IAT

TRA

sLR

As

WS

As

HIA

sP

Es

9

158


There were significant differences in theSF-12 Vitality scores that can be attributedto the IAT, whereby average scores in theTRAs, LRAs and WSAs were lower thanthose in the HIAs and PEs (p<0.001); thisis after taking into account the fact thatpeople in the 18-39 and 40-59 age groupshad higher scores that the 60+ age group(p<0.001), and men had higher scoresthan women (p<0.001).

The pattern of variation of the SF-12 SocialFunctioning scores is similar to that of theVitality scores, whereby average scores inthe TRAs, LRAs and WSAs were lowerthan those in the HIAs and PEs (p<0.001),even after taking into account the higherscores for people aged 18-39 compared toothers (p<0.001), and for men comparedwith women (p<0.001).

The variation in the WEMWBS scores canbe ascribed to highly significantassociations with IAT (p<0.001), such thatmost age-sex groups in the TRAs andLRAs scored lower than their equivalentselsewhere. Within the Regeneration Areas,the 40-59 year olds had lower scores thanyounger or older people.

The group of middle-aged men (aged 40-59) are of more general interest or concernsince they are often the lowest scoringmale age group: this is true in all five areatypes for the SF-12 score; in four areatypes for SF-12 Social Functioning; and inthree area types for the SF-12 RoleEmotional and WEMWBS measures. (Theoldest men and women, 60+ always scorelowest for vitality).

These findings hint at the complexity of therelationships involving just a few of themany possible personal characteristics ofthe residents of the GoWell areas that

might impinge on aspects of their mentalwellbeing. The patterns are not consistentamong the measures of the variouscomponents of mental health, andfurthermore, despite the strong statisticalsignificance of many of the relationships,the variables that have so far been chosento examine together explain a very smallfraction (<4.5%) of the total variation ineach score. Further analyses will attemptto explore and account for the patterns ofvariation in these scores.

Mental Health Problems

The survey also asked some directquestions about people’s experience ofmental health problems and theprofessional help they sought for them.

As part of the investigation into longer-termhealth conditions (those lasting for 12months or more), respondents were askedabout the following in 2006 and 2008:

2006: Whether they had ‘a psychologicalor emotional condition’ lasting 12 monthsor more.2008: Whether they had ‘stress, anxiety ordepression’ lasting 12 months or more.

In 2008, between 8% (in HIAs) and 16% (inLRAs) of respondents reported somemental health problem in the previous 12months (Figure 9.6), with significantdifferences between IATs (TRAs and PEsvs. LRAs vs. WSAs and HIAs (p<0.001)).The rates of problem were consistentlyhigher than had been reported in 2006(p<0.001) and the proportional increaseswere greatest for the two RegenerationAreas: in TRAs, nearly twice as manypeople reported a mental health problemin 2008 as in 2006, and nearly four times

159

as many people did so in LRAsas in 2006. Although thequestions in 2006 and 2008 areconsidered as equivalent, it ispossible that some of thedifference is accounted for by thewording changes, i.e. morepeople prepared to say theysuffer stress or anxiety, than tohave a psychological ‘condition’.

In order to examine not only theprevalence of mental healthconditions in the study areapopulations, but also the severityof the conditions experienced, in2008, those participants who hadreported a mental health problemin the previous 12 months wereasked: ‘Has this conditionimproved, stayed the same or gotworse in the last two years?’

The responses indicate a generalworsening of respondents’conditions between 2006 and2008 (Figure 9.7). Almost half ofthose in the TRAs who weresuffering a mental health problemin 2008 reported a worsening oftheir condition. In fact, in four ofthe five IATs (WSAs being theexception), more of the mentalhealth problem sufferers reporteda worsening rather than animprovement in their condition.


Perc

enta

ge re

porti

ng m

enta

l hea

lth p

robl

em

TRAs0

5

10

15

20

Figure 9.6 Reporting of mental health problems inthe previous 12 months by IAT, 2006-08

LRAs WSAs HIAs PEs

IAT

2006 2008

Question: (2006) “Have you had a psychological or emotional conditionover the past 12 months” (2008) “Have you had stress, anxiety ordepression regularly over the past 12 months” (for a condition that haslasted for 12 months or more) [Change over time: All area types, p<0.001]

Perc

enta

ge c

hang

e

TRAs0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Figure 9.7 Change in mental health condition, 2006-08

LRAs WSAs HIAs PEs

IAT

Worsened Stayed same Improved

Question:”Has this condition improved, stayed the same or got worse inthe last two years?”

9

160


Use of GP for MentalHealth Reasons

Not all mental health conditionsmay be long-term in nature; theymay be short-term responses totemporary difficulties or changesof circumstance to which peoplemay adapt in time. To ensure thatinformation about mental healthproblems of any duration wasgathered respondents were alsoasked:

‘In the past 12 months, haveyou spoken to a GP or familydoctor on your own behalf,either in person or bytelephone about being anxiousor depressed or about amental, nervous or emotionalproblem (including stress)?’

Once again, there was a generalpattern of worsening mentalhealth (Figure 9.8). Overall, in2008, one-in-six residents hadvisited their GP in the previousyear because of a mental health-related matter. There wasconsiderable variation betweenIATs, however (p<0.001). Over aquarter of residents in the LRAs,WSAs and slightly fewer in thePEs had sought this type of help,whereas only 13% of those in theHIAs and 17% of those in theTRAs had done so. The figuresfor 2008 are higher than those of2006 for all IATs except for theHIAs, which registered a small,and statistically non-significant fallof 2.5%. The increases of justover 10% in the LRAs and WSAswere significant (p<0.001).

Thus, more people visit their GP about mental health-related issues at some point in the year than reportthat they have a longer-term or an ongoing mentalhealth-related condition. This suggests that significantnumbers of people experience temporary mentalhealth problems each year, i.e. stress, anxiety or otheremotional problems which may last a few weeks or afew months but not longer. In 2008, for example,44.9% and 51.7% of respondents in the TRAs andLRAs, respectively, who visited their GP about a mentalhealth-related matter, did not claim to have a longer-term mental health-related condition, while thesevalues were even higher for the WSAs (71.4%), HIAs(61.8%) and PEs (67.7%).

It is also possible that the slightly different manner inwhich these psychological problems were enquiredabout in 2006 and 2008 may have contributed to thedifferent responses.

Perc

enta

ge c

onta

ctin

g G

P

TRAs0

15

10

5

20

35

30

25

50

45

40

Figure 9.8 Contact with GP over a mental healthrelated issue, 2006-08

LRAs WSAs HIAs PEs

IAT

2006 2008

Question: In the past 12 months, have you spoken to a GP or familydoctor on your own behalf, either in person or by telephone about beinganxious or depressed or about a mental, nervous or emotional problem(including stress)?[Change over time: LRAs and WSAs, p<0.001; TRAs, p=0.532; HIAs,p=0.080; PEs, p=0.392]

161

Discussion

A complex picture of mental health amongGoWell residents has been presented. Itmight generally have been expected formental health to have become worse in theRegeneration Areas between 2006 and2008 relative to the other IATs, because ofthe worse poverty and deprivation in theseareas as well as the disruption andinconvenience caused by renewal activity.This is largely borne out by the resultsabout respondents’ experiences of mentalhealth problems, which were more commonin the Regeneration Areas than in the WSAsand HIAs and were getting worse over time.This is not to say that mental healthproblems are a function of regenerationactivity. Indeed, the increase in theincidence of respondents seeking help fromtheir GP for a mental health problem wasnegligible in the TRAs, where regenerationactivity might be expected to be mostintense, but more substantial in the LRAsand WSAs. The large number of aspects ofpersonal circumstances, the home,neighbourhood and community that mayinfluence residents’ mental health andwellbeing are likely to prevent astraightforward explanation. At the otherend of the spectrum, one might expect tosee the mental health consequences of the2008-9 recession reflected in the findings offuture surveys compared with themeasurements made at Wave 2, before therecession properly began.

However, in assessments of the impact ofmental health issues upon people’s qualityof life (how they performed daily functionsand how they felt on a daily basis) thesituation in Regeneration Areas appears tohave improved over time, so that mentalhealth quality of life was at least as good, ifnot better, in Regeneration Areas than

elsewhere. This suggests that despite aworsening of mental health problems overtime, people in Regeneration Areas may bemore resilient to the potential effects upontheir functioning. Two potentialexplanations for this are: firstly, that theyounger and non-British-born population inRegeneration Areas is indeed more able tocope with mental health issues; and,secondly, that as a consequence of theformer, mental health issues are not sodetrimental to those with less activelifestyles in these areas.

The downside to this pattern, though, isperhaps revealed by the findings on thequestion of vitality, namely whetherresidents have energy and inclination to dothings on a daily basis. Here, it was foundthat capability and performance weredeteriorating, so that people reported‘having a lot of energy’ less of the time in2008 than in 2006. Indeed, generally,vitality is worse than other aspects of mentalhealth quality of life, as well as itself gettingworse over time. Reversing this position, sothat people are in fact ‘energised’ is a bigtransformational challenge across all thestudy areas, not just Regeneration Areas.


9

162


Key points

• Mental health problems (such aslonger-term stress, anxiety anddepression) have increased inprevalence over time in all areas,though particularly in the RegenerationAreas.

• However, the impact of mental healthissues upon quality of life and dailyfunctioning has lessened in theRegeneration Areas while worseningelsewhere. This could be for anumber of reasons, such as:

o populations in Regeneration Areasare more resilient to the impacts ofmental health upon dailyfunctioning;

o residents in Regeneration Areasbecome habituated to difficult andchallenging circumstances and soare less likely to feel ‘down’ aboutthem;

o the more deprived circumstancesthemselves lower the opportunitiesfor mental health problems to haveimpacts upon daily life;

o the prospect of change in the areaacts as a buffer or in a protectiveway against the potentially negativeimpacts of mental health issues.

• Three components of mental healthquality of life as measured by the SF-1245 health survey (Role Emotional,Mental Health, Social Functioning)showed significant improvementsbetween 2006 and 2008 in the TRAsand LRAs, and smaller declines or nochange in the WSAs and HIAs and thePEs.

• The fourth aspect of mental healthquality of life - Vitality (‘having a lot ofenergy’), decreased substantially in allIATs between 2006 and 2008.

• Significant amounts of the variation inthe measures of components ofmental health may be accounted forby the demographic profile of the IATs,rather than, or in addition to thedifferences between IATs.

• The percentages of respondentsreporting some type of mental healthproblem in the previous 12 monthsincreased substantially in all IATs,especially in the LRAs and to a lesserextent in the TRAs.

• More than two-in-five of those peoplein the TRAs, LRAs and HIAs whoreported having a mental healthproblem over the previous year, saidthat their condition had worsenedsince 2006.

• There were marked increases in thepercentages of people seeking helpfrom their GP for a mental healthproblem from 2006 to 2008 in theLRAs and WSAs. Substantialproportions of those seeking help froma GP do not report a long-term mentalhealth condition, suggesting anincrease in the incidence of acuteepisodes of anxiety, stress anddepression.

• WEMWBS44 scores of positive mentalwellbeing were somewhat lower in theTRAs and LRAs than in the other IATs,and a disproportionately large

163

percentage (57%) of the respondentswith the poorest scores were living inRegeneration Areas. Area typedifferences were also present inrespect of measures of vitality andsocial functioning, with people inRegeneration Areas again scoringlower (after taking age and sexdifferences between areas intoaccount).

• Further analysis is required to drawsound conclusions about the likelydrivers of positive and negative statesof mental health.

• Middle-aged men may be of particularconcern as they often report thelowest scores across a range ofmeasures of mental health.

Are positive and negativemental health inverselyassociated?

It is increasingly appreciated thatpositive mental health is not the samething as the absence of negativemental health states and that people'soverall mental health can becomprised of good (healthy) and poor(unhealthy) components. GoWell'smeasures of mental health are the fourSF-1245 scores (Role Emotional,Mental Health, Vitality and SocialFunctioning), which tend to assessnegative states of mental health –although the scales are ordered sothat higher scores indicate better, ormore exactly, less poor, mental health– and the WEMWBS44 score, whichmeasures positive mental health (inwhich higher scores correspond tobetter positive mental health). Thesimplest expectation would be thatindividuals with high levels of positivemental health would have low levels ofnegative mental health, and viceversa. The GoWell 2008 survey datacan be used to examine howconsistently respondents' positive andnegative mental health measures arenegatively correlated.

In a simple but illustrative analysis, thefour continuous SF-1245 scales areeach converted into a two-categoryvariable with, as far as possible, equalnumbers of low and high scoringrespondents, and the WEMWBS44

score is converted into a three-category variable corresponding tovalues 1 standard deviation (8.79) ormore from the national population


9

low highlow highlow highlow high

164


norm mean of 50.7 (below andabove average), and those of 1standard deviation or less of themean (average):• Role Emotional: <100 vs. 100

(reflecting the large number ofpeople whose Role Emotionalscore was the maximumpossible)

• Mental Health: = 75 vs. >75• Vitality: = 50 vs. >50• Social Functioning: = 95 vs. >95• WEMWBS score: = below

average (<41.91) vs. average vs.above average (>59.49)

Table 9.4 shows the cross-tabulatedpercentages of respondents in theentire 2008 sample with low and highscores for the four SF-1245 scales incombination below average, averageand above average WEMWBS44

scores. If positive and negativeaspects of mental health are indeednegatively correlated one wouldexpect a substantial proportion ofrespondents to be distributedrespectively in the low-below averageand high-above averagecombinations (figures shown in boldin the table). Although this generaltrend is observed (Role Emotional,28.9%; Mental Health, 25.9%, Vitality,30.9%, Social Functioning, 25.2%),substantial numbers of respondentstherefore have an apparentlyparadoxical combination of a lowand a high score (Role Emotional,9.6%; Mental Health, 12.6%, Vitality,7.7%, Social Functioning, 13.4%).

Even this straightforward presentation of therelationship between positive and negativecomponents of mental health is sufficient tohighlight the complexity of this aspect ofpersonal wellbeing. Future analyses willexamine these connections in greater depth aswell as investigating the characteristics ofpersonal circumstances, the home,neighbourhood and community that areassociated with good and poor mental health.

RoleEmotionalMentalHealth

Vitality

SocialFunctioning

WEMWBS SCORE

ABOVEAVERAGE

3.519.2

9.413.3

6.716.1

6.616.2

AVERAGE

22.039.439.721.741.120.325.835.6

BELOWAVERAGE

9.76.1

12.63.2

14.81.09.06.8

SF-12 SCORE

Table 9.4 Cross-tabulated percentages ofrespondents scoring low orhigh in measures of positive(WEMWBS) and negative (SF-12) mental health

165

10

In this chapter the nature and scale ofpolicy interventions in the studycommunities is reviewed, what the impactof those policy actions have been to date,and some of the main challengesremaining to be tackled across Glasgow’spoorer communities identified.

Housing

The most widespread activity so far hasbeen the delivery of housingimprovements, which has occurred in allthe study communities to a significantdegree. Most commonly, these worksconsisted of new kitchens, bathrooms andheating systems, though in multi-storeyblocks the most common additions werenew secure by design doors and entrysystems. These housing investments haveresulted in increases in housingsatisfaction and in the attainment of manypsychosocial benefits from the home.Improvements in these housing outcomesfor residents were greatest in the WiderSurrounding Areas (WSAs), where owneroccupation is highest, and the delivery ofimprovements to owner-occupieddwellings was most common. One mightspeculate that these residents could notonly experience direct benefits fromspecific types of improvement, but mayalso feel that the investment may increasetheir property value.

The situation in Regeneration Areas hasworsened in housing and residential terms,with deterioration in the perceived qualityof multi-storey flats (MSFs) and a higherrate of intention to move. The oneexception to this story of decline inRegeneration Areas is that of enhancedfeelings of safety inside the home,probably due to the installation of securelocks and doors.


Conclusion

166


Generally, MSFs have been found to beless capable of providing high levels ofhousing satisfaction or of psychosocialbenefits than other types of dwelling, thussupporting the idea that they should bereplaced wherever possible. Whether theretention and improvement of high-riseblocks can provide equally high levels ofreturns for residents as other buildings is aquestion we hope to be able to address infutures waves of the GoWell survey.

In terms of housing activity, the mainchallenge now is to improve dwellingquality for residents in the RegenerationAreas and, to a lesser extent, for some ofthe residents in the Peripheral Estates(PEs), where there are also many aspectsof dwellings rated less than ‘good’. Mostpeople in Regeneration Areas and a thirdof people in PEs also do not have agarden to use, and the issue of access toprivate green space is an important onegiven its potential contribution to healthand wellbeing. In residential terms,Regeneration Areas continue to be subjectto higher levels of turnover, with manymore incomers than other areas. Adecision and a strategy to reducepopulation turnover in these areas may behelpful to them – although we accept thatthis may be a difficult goal to achieve.

There have been efforts by GlasgowHousing Association (GHA) to improve itscustomer services (noted also by theScottish Housing Regulator47) and thepossible results of this can be seen inincreases in feelings of housingempowerment by tenants in all the studycommunities, with more people than in2006 thinking that their landlord or factortakes account of residents’ views inmaking decisions. Indeed, in non-regeneration areas GHA as a landlord was

found to be performing better than otherRegistered Social Landlords (RSLs) andcomparable to private sector factoring, interms of customer services andgovernance. Nonetheless, there is scopeto further improve tenants’ satisfaction withhousing services (given what is knownabout national norms on this issue) andthere is clearly room to further enhancetenants perceptions of their influence overlandlords in Regeneration Areas.

Neighbourhoods

There have been widespread, though notuniversal, actions to improveneighbourhood environments (includingextensive housing fabric improvements insome areas), and also to improve somelocal amenities such as children’s playareas. There have also been actions insome areas relating to community facilitiesand community arts projects. Generally,residents’ ratings of their localenvironments have improved since 2006,with the notable exception of theaesthetics of environments (whether theylook attractive). Ratings of environmentalaesthetics have worsened in RegenerationAreas – which is not surprising given theimpacts of processes of clearance anddemolition – and remained modest andunchanged in the PEs. Residents’ ratingsof local amenities are generally relativelyhigh and in many cases have alsoimproved over time. The outcomemeasure that appears to have mostconsistently responded to theseneighbourhood improvements is thatwhich measures the psychosocial benefitof whether people feel a sense of personalprogress in their lives through where theylive.

167

The one notable exception to improvedratings of local amenities is youth andleisure services which are perceived tohave declined in the Regeneration Areas,whilst also often being given the lowestrating of all amenities and services inmany other areas. This perception ofyouth and leisure services is pertinentgiven that perceptions of safety at night,and of anti-social behaviour, haveworsened in all areas, despite widespreadactions to provide youth diversionaryactivities and support community safety. Itmay be significant that the study areaswith the highest incidence of serious anti-social behaviour problems – theRegeneration Areas and PEs – are alsothose areas with high numbers of familyhouseholds, many more than found inurban areas in Scotland generally. Theseareas also have high proportions ofyounger adults (aged under 25), and ofsingle parent families. This amalgam ofissues raises the question as to whethersupport services are adequate in manypoorer areas, given the high numbers ofyoung people and young parentsconcentrated together in certaincommunities.

All areas apart from HIAs are consideredby their residents to have poor externalreputations, even more so than in 2006.Furthermore, in Regeneration Areas, only aminority of residents think their area has agood reputation even among local people.The transformation of many areas,therefore, requires specific actions toenhance area status and reputation (andto counter negative reputations), ratherthan merely hoping that area reputationswill automatically change as areas arephysically improved.

Communities

Actions designed to support or stimulatecommunity activities and/or to boostpeople’s sense of community are deliveredby a range of organisations in the public,voluntary and community sectors. Thequestion of whether the structures andprojects that have been put in place reflectthe different needs and priorities of thecommunity needs to be explored further.As well as supporting community activities,individual organisations also undertakeengagement in relation to their own plansand proposals. GHA’s consultationsconcerning regeneration and new buildhousing are examples.

The advent of community planningbrought the potential to put in place amore strategic approach to community-ledactivities. Engagement networkcoordinators have been recruited toensure that mechanisms are in place topromote community engagement in eachpart of Glasgow. In addition, 13Community Reference Groups (panels oflocal residents) have been formed – theaim being to have community dialogue indeciding the key things that matter tocommunities and how communityplanning partners might respond to these.These were put in place in the periodbetween the two GoWell surveys.

With regard to community outcomes, thepicture is fairly static in WSAs and HousingImprovement Areas (HIAs), with a mixedpicture in the PEs, and a worsening ofmany measures of community in theRegeneration Areas. Despite most peoplereporting that they talk to, or have contactwith their neighbours at least weekly, mostpeople across the study areas do not


10

168


know many of their neighbours orexchange things with them, and manypeople do not visit their neighbours’homes. Hence there are limits to whichthese neighbourhoods can be consideredto contain ‘close’ communities. Levels ofavailable social support have fallen slightlyover time in the Regeneration Areas and inthe PEs. In many areas, barely a majority ofpeople have confidence in theircommunity’s ability to exercise informalsocial control, and only a minority believein the honesty of people in their area. Thesituation on these issues is worse in theRegeneration Areas than in otherIntervention Area Types (IATs).

Therefore, whilst respondents do providesome positive reports of their communities,many of the study areas cannot be said tobe characterised by a strong sense ofcommunity or by the more active forms ofneighbourhood contact (e.g. socialsupport, reciprocity, etc). In theRegeneration Areas, sense of community isoften lower for families than for otherhousehold types, echoing the earlierconcerns about support for young familiesin some areas. This may be important forregeneration’s ultimate outcomes, since apositive association between the measuresof community and people’s sense ofcollective empowerment have been found.

Although there have been improvementsacross all the study areas in the degree towhich people feel that they can, with otherpeople, influence decisions affecting theirareas, only in WSAs and HIAs does thisreach a bare majority of residents. Indeed,in the areas subject to the most significantdecisions – the Regeneration Areas – onlythree-in-ten people feel so empowered orinfluential.

Improvements in the number of people inmany areas who report the existence ofsocial harmony (that people from differentbackgrounds get along well together) sitalongside the fact that in RegenerationAreas only two-in-five non-British citizenssay they feel part of the community. Thismay indicate that programmes to supportthe integration of migrants in many areashave had some success both in enablingmigrant groups to support each other, andin reducing some of the tensions betweenmigrant groups and local people whichexisted a few years ago. They seem,however, to have been less successful atinterweaving migrants into the life ofcommunities which themselves are quitedormant.

Boosting communities will require amixture of community developmentactivities and the greater provision ofopportunities and facilities for people whoshare the same residential space toengage with each other. Only in two of thetypes of study area did as many as six-in-ten people rate their local social andcommunity venues as at least ‘good’, thusindicating substantial scope for theimprovement of available communityspaces, even before the introduction ofany personnel to support communitydevelopment.

Employment and activity

Higher reported employment rates werefound among men in all the types of studyarea compared with 2006, and in two-in-five types of study area also for women. Itis not currently possible to firmly attributethese improvements to policyinterventions, though there are a widerange of employment and employability

169

programmes in the city, provided byGlasgow Works, the City Council, LocalEconomic Development Agencies, theWise Group and others. Actions by GHAand RSLs are varied and some did notcommence until after the 2008 survey.Nonetheless, despite the reportedimprovements in employment rates, it isstill the case that between one-third andtwo-thirds of adult respondents of workingage are not in employment across thestudy areas.

The employment challenge is emphasisedby the fact that of those working ageadults who are not in employment oreducation, very few have done anythingabout their employment situation in thepast year: the number who have soughtwork ranges from just over one-in-ten inthe PEs to just over one-in-five in theTransformational Regeneration Areas(TRAs). Even among the younger adultsout of work (those under 25), only a thirdhad taken part in education or training inthe past year, and very few of those overage 39 had done so. With less than a fifthof out-of-work adults seeking work ortraining across all the study areas, andwith only 9% of all respondents taking partin any group, club or organisation in thepast year, it is clear that many of the studycommunities contain large proportions ofadults with no means of making a positivecontribution to society or theircommunities beyond their own family lives.

Health

The findings for self-reported physicalhealth problems and also several mentalhealth measures do not follow the patternof many of the other findings, suggestingthat self-reported health does not bear a

strong relation to housing andregeneration activity at this point in time.A small decline in self-reported generalhealth and no change in the use of GPservices have been found. More peoplereported having no health problems butthose people with health problems tendedto report having more of them thanpreviously (indicating more co-morbidity).

In terms of health behaviours, the biggestchallenge identified was physical inactivity,with two-thirds of respondents across thestudy areas having not done any moderateor vigorous physical activity in the pastweek, and one-in-four reporting that theyhad not walked for at least ten minutes inthe past week. Health behaviours –inactivity, smoking, eating no fruit orvegetables, alcohol consumption – wereoften worse among flat dwellers (andwithin that among occupants of high-riseflats), people who were unemployed orlong-term sick, and among single adultsbelow retirement age. Overall, populationhealth and health behaviours in theRegeneration Areas were improved by thepresence of migrants who reported betterhealth and less health damagingbehaviours.

In terms of mental health, the mainfindings were declines in reported vitalityin Regeneration Areas and WSAs,increases in the reporting of long-termmental health problems in all areas (butespecially Local Regeneration Areas(LRAs)) and increased use of GPs formental health reasons in LRAs and WSAs.In accord with many of the earlier results, adisproportionate number of those peoplewith the lowest scores on the measure ofpositive mental health were found residingin the Regeneration Areas.


10

170


Summary: People and Place

In summary, more progress in terms ofphysical than social regeneration has beenfound thus far in the study areas. It isprobably too early to see manyconnections between physical changesand health outcomes, but we might expectthese to become clearer in future surveys.The continued improvement of Glasgow’spredominantly social housing areasrequires a clear strategy and commitmentwhich will support and enable individualsto make changes to improve their ownhealth and wellbeing, and to contribute tothe enhancement of their communities, sothat both people and places aretransformed. Such a strategy shouldcontain interventions focused on theinfrastructure, organisation and functioningof communities as well as people-basedinterventions targeted at individuals inneed of support to make personalchanges to their behaviours andaspirations. Consideration of thedemographic composition of thesecommunities, now and in the future, is alsorequired, given the consequences ofcurrent allocation policies. This dependsupon the provision of leadership,commitment and resources from the mainresponsible agencies in order to assemblethe necessary partnerships to deliver sucha comprehensive programme. None ofthese things yet exist on a similar scale forsocial regeneration as they do for physicalregeneration. That is a past mistake indanger of being repeated yet again unlesssteps are soon taken to avert it.

171

References

1. www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Built-Environment/regeneration/fairer-scotland-fund2. www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Built-Environment/Housing/16342/shqs3. Glasgow City Council Tax Registers, August 2006. Glasgow: 20064. Scottish Executive (2005). People and place: regeneration policy statement.

Edinburgh; 2006; www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2006/06/01145839/05. Scottish Executive (2004) Closing the Opportunity Gap. Edinburgh; 20046. www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Built-Environment/regeneration/fairer-scotland-fund/Q-A7. www.scotland.gov.uk/About/scotPerforms8. The Scottish Government (2008). Equally Well: Report of the Ministerial Task Force

on Health Inequalities. Edinburgh: 2008.9. Glasgow and the Clyde Valley Structure Plan Joint Committee. Glasgow and the

Clyde Valley 2005; Consultative Draft Structure Plan. Glasgow: 200510. Glasgow and the Clyde Valley Structure Plan Joint Committee. Glasgow and the

Clyde Valley Joint Structure Plan 2006: The twenty year development vision.Glasgow: 2008

11. Glasgow Community Planning Partnership (2005) Our Vision for Glasgow.Community Plan 2005-2010; www.glasgowcommunityplanningpartnership.org.uk

12. Glasgow Community Planning Partnership (2005) Regeneration OutcomeAgreement 2006-2008.

13. Glasgow Community Planning Partnership (2009) Glasgow’s Single OutcomeAgreement;www.glasgow.gov.uk/en/YourCouncil/PolicyPlanning_Strategy/Corporate/SOU/

14. Glasgow City Council. Glasgow City Plan 2: Finalised Draft Plan. Glasgow. GlasgowCity Council, 2007

15. Glasgow City Council (2003). Glasgow’s Local Housing Strategy (LHS) 2003-2008.Glasgow: 2003;www.glasgow.gov.uk/en/Business/Housing/HousingStrategy/LocalHousingStrategy/

16. Glasgow City Council (2005). Glasgow Local Housing Strategy and Housing IssuesUpdate 2005. Glasgow: 2005

17. Glasgow City Council (2009) Glasgow’s Housing Issues: Consultative Draft LocalHousing Strategy 2009.

18. Glasgow Housing Association. Better homes, better lives. GHA Business Plan2009/10. Glasgow 2009

19. Glasgow Housing Association. Better homes, better lives. 30 year Business Plan2007/08. Glasgow: GHA, 2007.

20. GHA (2008) Better homes, better lives. Regeneration Strategy. Glasgow: 200821. www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Built-Environment/Housing/16342/shqs22. Amabile D, Cairns P, Cormack D, Máté I, Sloan A. Scottish House Condition Survey:

Key Findings for 2005/6. Housing and Regeneration Directorate, ScottishGovernment (2007). Edinburgh: 2007

23. Scottish Housing Condition Survey 2004-2007;www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Statistics/SHCS

24. The Scottish Housing Regulator (2009): Glasgow City Council Inspection ReportJuly 2009. Edinburgh: 2009

25. Glasgow City Council (2009) Glasgow’s Strategic Housing Investment Plan 2010/11to 2014/15. Glasgow: 2009

26. Teedon P, Reid T, Griffiths P, Lindsay K, Glen S, McFadyen A, Cruz P. Secured byDesign Impact Evaluation: Key Findings. Caledonian Environment Centre, Glasgow:2009

172


27. www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2009/04/27095102/0SG28. www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2008/08/18141633/029. Glasgow Housing Association (2005) Neighbourhood Renewal Strategy 2005-07

Strategy and Action Plan. GHA, Glasgow: 200530. www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Built-Environment/regeneration/widerrole31. Fyfe A, Macmillan K, McGregor T, Reid S. (2009) Informing Future Approaches to

Tackling Multiple Deprivation in Communities: Beyond the Fairer Scotland Fund.Edinburgh: Scottish Government Social Research.

32. Scottish Government and COSLA (2009) Equal Communities in a Fairer ScotlandFund: A Joint Statement.

33. Scottish Executive (2006). Scotland’s National Transport Strategy. Edinburgh: 2006;www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/157751/0042649.pdf

34. Crawford F, Beck S, Hanlon P. Will Glasgow Flourish? Regeneration and Health inGlasgow: Learning from the past, analysing the present and planning for the future.Glasgow: Glasgow Centre for Population Health, 2007.

35. Glasgow City Council. Education Services. Education Commission Report 2007.Glasgow: 2007www.glasgow.gov.uk/en/Residents/GoingtoSchool/TeachinGlasgow/educationcommission.htm

36. www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/People/Young-People/Early-Education-Child-Care/15135/1085

37. Scottish Executive (2003). The 21st Century School: Building our Future. Scotland’sSchool Estate. Edinburgh: 2003

38. http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2002/05/14736/443339. www.ltscotland.org.uk/cpdscotland/nationalpriorities.asp40. www.determinedtosucceed.co.uk/dts/66.html41. http://www.ltscotland.org.uk/curriculumforexcellence/index.asp42. Glasgow Economic Forum (2006) A Step Change for Glasgow: Glasgow’s Ten Year

Economic Development Strategy. Glasgow: 200643. Craig CL, Marshall AL, Sjostrom M, Bauman AE, Booth ML, Ainsworth BE.

International physical activity questionnaire: 12 country reliability and validity.Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise 2003, 35:1381-1395;www.ipaq.ki.se/ipaq.htm

44. Tennant R, Hiller L, Fishwick R, Platt S, Joseph S, Weich S, Parkinson J, Secker J,Stewart-Brown S. The Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale (WEMWBS):development and UK validation. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes 2007, 5:63;

45. www.sf-36.org/tools/sf12.shtml46. Diffley M, Treanor S, Pawson H. (2009) Identifying the Priorities of Tenants of Social

Landlords. Edinburgh: Scottish Government Social Research. 47. The Scottish Housing Regulator (2009) Glasgow Housing Association: Progress

Report June 2009. Edinburgh.48. Scotland's People Annual Report: Results from 2007/2008 Scottish Household

Survey, Edinburgh: Scottish Government, Edinburgh: 2009.49. The Scottish Government (2009).The Scottish Health Survey 2008. Edinburgh;

www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Statistics/Browse/Health/scottish-health-survey/Publications

50. The Scottish Government (2009) Scottish Index for Multiple Deprivation. Edinburgh2009; www.scotland.gov.uk/Topic/Statistics/SIMD/Overview

173

Appendices

© C

row

n C

op

yrig

ht.

All

rig

hts

re

se

rve

d.

Gla

sg

ow

City

Co

un

cil,

10

00

23

37

9,

20

09

.

Ap

pen

dix

1

174


© C

row

n C

op

yrig

ht.

All

rig

hts

re

se

rve

d.

Gla

sg

ow

City

Co

un

cil,

10

00

23

37

9,

20

09

.

Ap

pen

dix

1

175

Appendices

© C

row

n C

op

yrig

ht.

All

rig

hts

re

se

rve

d.

Gla

sg

ow

City

Co

un

cil,

10

00

23

37

9,

20

09

.

Ap

pen

dix

1

176


© C

row

n C

op

yrig

ht.

All

rig

hts

re

se

rve

d.

Gla

sg

ow

City

Co

un

cil,

10

00

23

37

9,

20

09

.

Ap

pen

dix

1

177

Appendices

© C

row

n C

op

yrig

ht.

All

rig

hts

re

se

rve

d.

Gla

sg

ow

City

Co

un

cil,

10

00

23

37

9,

20

09

.

Ap

pen

dix

1

178


© C

row

n C

op

yrig

ht.

All

rig

hts

re

se

rve

d.

Gla

sg

ow

City

Co

un

cil,

10

00

23

37

9,

20

09

.

Ap

pen

dix

1

179

Appendices

© C

row

n C

op

yrig

ht.

All

rig

hts

re

se

rve

d.

Gla

sg

ow

City

Co

un

cil,

10

00

23

37

9,

20

09

.

Ap

pen

dix

1

180


© C

row

n C

op

yrig

ht.

All

rig

hts

re

se

rve

d.

Gla

sg

ow

City

Co

un

cil,

10

00

23

37

9,

20

09

.

Ap

pen

dix

1

181

Appendices

© C

row

n C

op

yrig

ht.

All

rig

hts

re

se

rve

d.

Gla

sg

ow

City

Co

un

cil,

10

00

23

37

9,

20

09

.

Ap

pen

dix

1

182


© C

row

n C

op

yrig

ht.

All

rig

hts

re

se

rve

d.

Gla

sg

ow

City

Co

un

cil,

10

00

23

37

9,

20

09

.

Ap

pen

dix

1

183

Appendices

© C

row

n C

op

yrig

ht.

All

rig

hts

re

se

rve

d.

Gla

sg

ow

City

Co

un

cil,

10

00

23

37

9,

20

09

.

Ap

pen

dix

1

184


© C

row

n C

op

yrig

ht.

All

rig

hts

re

se

rve

d.

Gla

sg

ow

City

Co

un

cil,

10

00

23

37

9,

20

09

.

Ap

pen

dix

1

185

Appendices

The questionnaire used for the secondsurvey in 2008 was substantially the same asat the first survey in 2006. Changes weremade to address matters that had assumedimportance since the first survey and toimprove questions that had yieldedresponses that tended to be unclear orinaccurate, or that varied little betweenrespondents.

The main additions to the questionnaireconcerned: 1) Whether respondent or household

participated at Wave 1, confirmation ofprevious address (new question)

2) Whether the building is managed by afactor or property management service,and, if so, degree of satisfaction withthis service (new questions)

3) Whether an ex-council home or boughtfrom the council or a private seller (newquestions)

4) Moving: reasons for moving, amount ofchoice offered in moving, relativesatisfaction with new and previoushome (new questions)

5) Psychosocial benefits of the home(extra aspects)

6) Neighbourhood empowerment (extraaspects)

7) Neighbourhood services and amenities(extra aspects, others removed)

8) Neighbourhood cohesion andbelonging, acquaintance withneighbours (new questions)

9) Degree to which respondents feel theyare kept informed about proposals toimprove or develop their area, andextent of agreement with regenerationplans and proposals (TRAs and LRAsonly) (new questions)

10) Change in external reputation of areaover previous two years (new question)

11) Participation in or support of groups,clubs or organisations in previousmonth (new question)

12) Relative quality of home, incomes inlocal area, quality of life and standard ofliving (new questions)

13) WEMWBS positive mental health scale(new questions; see Chapter 3 forfurther explanation)


Appendix 2: Differences between the 2006 and 2008 survey questionnaires

14) Change in smoking and alcoholdrinking behaviours over previous twoyears (new questions)

15) Frequency of positive and negativedietary habits (extra aspects)

16) The neighbourhood as a place to bringup children (new question)

17) Job-seeking, education or trainingundertaken in past month and year(new questions)

18) Single or mixed ethnicity household(new question)

19) Date of arrival in UK (except Britishcitizens born in UK) and date leave toremain granted (refugees only) (newquestions)

20) Educational/vocational qualificationsfrom non-UK country (except Britishcitizens born in UK) (new question)

To compensate for the additional questions,others were shortened or removed entirely:1) Rating aspects of home (fewer items)2) Neighbourhood services, quality and

problems/incivilities (fewer items)3) Description of neighbourhood

improvement and deterioration(removed)

4) Social contact (fewer items)5) Attitudes towards community (fewer

items)6) General health over previous year

(removed)7) Long-term illnesses (fewer items)8) Amount smoked (removed)9) Amount of alcohol drunk (fewer items)10) Recreational drug use (removed)11) Self-reported height and weight

(removed)12) Nature of job (removed)13) Receipt of housing benefit (removed)14) Income categories (removed)15) Methods of borrowing money (fewer

items)16) Marital status (removed)17) Religious affiliation (removed)

186


Appendix 3: Differences in prevalence of specific health problems, 2006-08,by IAT and sex, 2006-08

M

F

M

F

M

F

M

F

M

F

M

F

M

F

M

F

M

F

M

F

M

F

M

F

M

F

M

F

M

F

M

F

M

F

5

6

4

4

4

3

2

1

2

3

1

3

1

2

1

0

0

0

0

-1

1

2

2

0

0

-1

-1

-1

1

0

-2

-3

-1

-1

(0.001)

(0.001)

(<0.001)

(0.001)

(0.047)

(0.223)

(0.001)

(0.103)

(0.039)

(0.003)

(0.596)

(0.123)

(0.522)

(0.252)

(0.533)

(0.923)

(0.871)

(0.769)

(0.997)

(0.280)

(0.480)

(0.129)

(0.192)

(0.967)

(0.756)

(0.494)

(0.282)

(0.503)

(0.629)

(0.862)

(0.178)

(0.037)

(0.394)

(0.610)

10

14

0

4

5

4

3

6

3

4

-2

6

0

5

4

4

-2

4

0

3

1

-1

0

3

1

-2

1

0

-2

-3

-1

-4

1

1

(<0.001)

(<0.001)

(0.801)

(0.051)

(0.080)

(0.177)

(0.007)

(<0.001)

(0.003)

(0.013)

(0.204)

(0.001)

(0.970)

(0.012)

(0.161)

(0.156)

(0.233)

(0.011)

(0.554)

(0.028)

(0.359)

(0.397)

(0.825)

(0.265)

(0.715)

(0.364)

(0.307)

(0.916)

(0.388)

(0.132)

(0.646)

(0.015)

(0.598)

(0.621)

3

4

5

9

4

4

5

4

1

3

2

5

0

5

0

-3

2

1

2

-1

1

1

0

2

0

-2

-1

0

-3

-2

0

0

-2

0

(0.026)

(0.056)

(0.002)

(<0.001)

(0.221)

(0.198)

(<0.001)

(<0.001)

(0.375)

(0.031)

(0.140)

(0.007)

(0.775)

(0.009)

(0.941)

(0.299)

(0.164)

(0.392)

(0.097)

(0.572)

(0.345)

(0.392)

(0.979)

(0.413)

(0.944)

(0.407)

(0.449)

(0.760)

(0.251)

(0.417)

(0.953)

(0.908)

(0.316)

(0.893)

3

2

10

7

5

0

3

5

5

1

0

2

0

2

4

-4

4

1

2

1

1

-2

-2

-4

1

-1

2

0

1

-4

1

1

0

-3

(0.014)

(0.127)

(<0.001)

(<0.001)

(0.061)

(0.992)

(<0.001)

(<0.001)

(<0.001)

(0.237)

(0.760)

(0.090)

(0.978)

(0.287)

(0.045)

(0.058)

(0.001)

(0.383)

(0.012)

(0.461)

(0.221)

(0.102)

(0.442)

(0.058)

(0.484)

(0.823)

(0.125)

(0.820)

(0.653)

(0.053)

(0.538)

(0.576)

(0.906)

(0.138)

2

4

2

1

4

6

1

1

0

1

-1

1

-1

3

7

3

2

-1

0

1

1

1

-2

-1

-3

-1

-2

-5

-1

1

-1

-2

-5

-4

(0.370)

(0.024)

(0.174)

(0.237)

(0.147)

(0.009)

(0.079)

(0.207)

(0.836)

(0.160)

(0.556)

(0.671)

(0.699)

(0.091)

(0.002)

(0.230)

(0.094)

(0.382)

(0.812)

(0.357)

(0.546)

(0.498)

(0.395)

(0.605)

(0.154)

(0.517)

(0.237)

(0.001)

(0.632)

(0.483)

(0.774)

(0.161)

(0.006)

(0.026)

HEALTH PROBLEM SEX % DIFFERENCE (p-VALUE*)TRAs LRAs WSAs HIAs PEs

* Pearson Chi-Square Asymp. Sig. (2-sided). Statistically significant findings (p<0.05) are in bold.

Psychological / emotional

(long term)

Other health problems

(long term)

Not good health

(current)

Other pain

(recent)

Allergies / skin condition

(long term)

Migraines / headaches

(long term)

Migraine / headaches

(recent)

Sleeplessness

(recent)

Persistent cough

(recent)

Sinus / catarrh

(recent)

Stomach, kidney, digestion

(long term)

Difficulty walking

(recent)

Asthma, bronchitis, breathing

(long term)

Faint / dizziness

(recent)

Heart, blood, circulatory

(long term)

Pain in chest

(recent)

Palpitations / breathlessness

(recent)

TR

As

LR

As

WS

As

HIA

sP

Es

-4 - 3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10 +11 +12 +13 +14

Change in Reported Prevalence (%)

= Male

= Female

Area

Type

Self-Reported Long Term

Conditions/Problems

Change in Prevalence from 2006 to 2008 (*p<0.05; **p<0.01; ***p<0.001)

Decrease (%) Increase (%)

*

*****

***

***

**

***

*

***

*** ***

Allergies / Skin Condition

Asthma, Bronchitis, Breathing

Heart, Blood, Circulatory

Stomach, Kidney, Digestion

Migraine, Frequent Headaches

Psychological / Emotional

Other Long Term Health





























**

**

*

**

*

***

***

***

187

Appendices 4 and 5 summarise findings from questions about respondents’ long-term and recent health. Bars tothe right of the zero line represent a higher prevalence of specific health problems in 2008 compared to 2006,whereas bars to the left of zero represent a lower prevalence in 2008.

Appendix 4: Changes in the prevalence of longer-term (lasting 12 months ormore) health conditions, by IAT, 2006-08


Statistically significant differences are indicated as follows: *p<0.05; **p<0.01; ***p<0.001.

Appendices

188


Appendix 5: Changes in the prevalence of recent health problems (last fourweeks), by IAT, 2006-2008

Not Good Health

Sleeplessness

Palpitations/breathlessness

Sinus/Catarrh

Persistent Cough

Faint/Dizziness

Pain in Chest

Difficulty Walking

Migraines/headaches

Other pain

Not Good Health

Sleeplessness


Sinus/Catarrh

Persistent Cough

Faint/Dizziness

Pain in Chest

Difficulty Walking

Migraines/headaches

Other pain

Not Good Health

Sleeplessness


Sinus/Catarrh

Persistent Cough

Faint/Dizziness

Pain in Chest

Difficulty Walking

Migraines/headaches

Other pain

Not Good Health

Sleeplessness


Sinus/Catarrh

Persistent Cough

Faint/Dizziness

Pain in Chest

Difficulty Walking

Migraines/headaches

Other pain

Not Good Health

Sleeplessness


Sinus/Catarrh

Persistent Cough

Faint/Dizziness

Pain in Chest

Difficulty Walking

Migraines/headaches

Other pain

TR

As

LR

As

WS

As

HIA

sP

Es

-6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6

+7

= Male

= Female

AreaType

Self-Reported RecentSymptoms / Illness

Change in Prevalence from 2006 to 2008 (*p<0.05; **p<0.01; ***p<0.001)

Decrease (%) Increase (%)

*

** **

*

** *

****

*

***

*

*

*

**

**

**

***

***

***

***

***

*

Statistically significant differences are indicated as follows: *p<0.05; **p<0.01; ***p<0.001.

Change in Reported Prevalence (%)

189


Appendix 6: Bivariate logistic regression for householders reporting nomoderate or vigorous physical activity, 2008

AREA TYPETRAsLRAsWSAsHIAsPEs

GENDERMaleFemale

AGE<2525-3940-5455-6465+

TENUREOwner occupiersRenters

CITIZEN STATUSUK citizen born in UKUK citizen born outside UKAsylum seeker / refugeeOther

HOUSEHOLD STRUCTUREFamilySingle adult <64yrsSingle adult >64yrs2+ adults <65yrs2+ adults >65yrs

BUILDING TYPEHouse4-in-a-blockLow rise flatHigh rise flat

EMPLOYMENT STATUSEmployedEducation/trainingUnemployedRetiredSickHomemaker

740526347857612

1,2771,805

175780826458843

4632,619

2,488125222

74

682540794495404

490473667

1,437

65283

6711,016

385234

68.9764.3059.4270.1363.75

64.3067.58

49.8657.8265.3571.9079.83

58.4667.76

67.6553.6558.8955.22

59.1582.3267.4661.2666.67

57.1868.3567.1068.59

51.7949.4068.8279.3176.6958.21

1.521.231.001.601.20

1.001.16

1.001.381.902.573.98

1.001.49

1.811.001.241.07

1.003.211.431.091.38

1.001.621.531.64

1.101.002.263.933.371.43

<0.0010.063

<0.0010.089

0.019

0.008<0.001<0.001<0.001

<0.001

<0.001

0.2050.771

<0.001<0.001

0.3470.002

<0.001<0.001<0.001

0.562

<0.001<0.001<0.001

0.054

(1.23 -(0.99 -

(1.31 -(0.97 -

(1.02 -

(1.09 -(1.49 -(1.96 -(3.08 -

(1.28 -

(1.38 -

(0.89 -(0.70 -

(2.55 -(1.21 -(0.91 -(1.12 -

(1.31 -(1.26 -(1.39 -

(0.80 -

(1.62 -(2.82 -(2.34 -(0.99 -

1.87)1.53)

1.97)1.48)

1.31)

1.74)2.41)3.38)5.15)

1.75)

2.36)

1.72)1.63)

4.06)1.70)1.31)1.70)

2.00)1.85)1.93)

1.52)

3.15)5.47)4.86)2.05)

VARIABLES(LOWEST VALUE = BASE)

NO PHYSICAL ACTIVITY LASTING >10MIN IN PREVIOUS 7 DAYS

CONFIDENCEINTERVAL (95%)

(%)n ODDS RATIO p-VALUE LOWER HIGHER

Appendices

190


Appendix 7: Bivariate logistic regression for householders reporting eatingno portions of fruit or vegetables in the previous 24 hours, 2008


GENDERMaleFemale

AGE<2525-3940-5455-6465+






102103

199250

179187

29112113

5359

24342

2801424

7

94122

395230

432960

233

7410

136794319

9.5112.59

3.257.535.21

9.017.00

8.268.308.948.325.59

3.038.85

7.616.016.375.22

8.1510.37

5.956.444.95

5.024.196.04

11.12

5.885.95

13.956.178.574.73

3.124.281.002.421.63

1.321.00

1.521.531.661.531.00

1.003.11

1.291.001.060.86

1.702.221.211.321.00

1.211.001.472.86

1.261.283.271.321.891.00

<0.001<0.001

0.0010.074

0.012

0.0750.0110.0020.029

<0.001

0.369

0.8590.756

0.014<0.001

0.4380.238

0.443

0.097<0.001

0.3830.545

<0.0010.2830.025

(1.89 -(2.59 -

(1.46 -(0.95 -

(1.06 -

(0.96 -(1.10 -(1.20 -(1.04 -

(2.04 -

(0.74 -

(0.54 -(0.34 -

(1.12 -(1.47 -(0.74 -(0.83 -

(0.75 -

(0.93 -(1.93 -

(0.75 -(0.58 -(1.99 -(0.79 -(1.08 -

5.15)7.07)

4.01)2.80)

1.63)

2.42)2.12)2.30)2.25)

4.73)

2.24)

2.10)2.19)

2.60)3.35)1.98)2.10)

1.96)

2.31)4.25)

2.11)2.81)5.36)2.21)3.30)

VARIABLES(LOWEST VALUE = BASE*)

NO PORTIONS OF FRUIT OR VEG. IN LAST 24 HOURS

CONFIDENCEINTERVAL (95%)


* Except where the category is ‘other’ (i.e. citizen status).

191


Appendix 8: Bivariate logistic regression for householders reportingbeing a current smoker, 2008


GENDERMaleFemale

AGE<2525-3940-5455-6465+






368342505462223

905995

122535633309301

2391,661

1,744514124

409654198348209

324295476800

48428

492424296144

34.3041.8141.3348.1338.18

45.5737.25

34.7639.6650.0848.5128.50

30.1842.98

47.4221.8910.8817.91

35.4755.5630.1843.0734.49

37.8142.6347.8938.19

38.4416.6750.4633.1058.9635.82

1.001.381.351.781.18

1.411.00

1.341.652.522.361.00

1.001.74

7.392.301.001.79

1.272.891.001.751.22

1.001.221.511.02

3.121.005.092.477.182.79

0.0010.001

<0.0010.115

<0.001

0.027<0.001<0.001<0.001

<0.001

<0.001<0.001

0.038

0.022<0.001

<0.0010.102

0.054<0.001

0.847

<0.001

<0.001<0.001<0.001<0.001

(1.14 -(1.14 -(1.49 -(0.96 -

(1.25 -

(1.03 -(1.39 -(2.12 -(1.93 -

(1.48 -

(5.31 -(1.47 -

(1.03 -

(1.04 -(2.36 -

(1.41 -(0.96 -

(1.00 -(1.26 -(0.86 -

(2.05 -

(3.33 -(1.62 -(4.61 -(1.77 -

1.66)1.60)2.12)1.46)

1.59)

1.73)1.96)2.99)2.90)

2.06)

10.29)3.60)

3.09)

1.56)3.54)

2.17)1.54)

1.50)1.82)1.20)

4.76)

7.79)3.77)

11.19)4.39)


CURRENT SMOKERS IN 2008 CONFIDENCEINTERVAL (95%)


Appendices

192


Appendix 9: Bivariate logistic regression for householders reportingabstinence from alcohol consumption, 2008


GENDERMaleFemale

AGE<2525-3940-5455-6465+


CITIZEN STATUSUK citizen born in UKUK citizen born outside UKRefugee: indefinite leave to remainRefugee: exceptional leave to remainAsylum seeker / refugeeOther

HOUSEHOLD STRUCTURESingle adult <64yrsSingle adult >64yrs2+ adults <65yrs2+ adults >65yrsFamily



599420194474342

6911,338

147651485245501

2751,754

1,297172129

72103

86

419316313251629

320240396

1,070

402106449579208252

55.8251.3433.2238.7935.63

34.7950.09

41.8848.2638.3738.4647.44

34.7245.38

35.2673.8276.7986.7582.4063.70

35.6048.1738.7441.4254.55

37.3434.6839.8451.07

31.9363.1046.0545.2041.4362.69

2.542.121.001.271.11

1.001.88

1.161.501.001.001.45

1.001.56

1.005.186.07

12.028.593.22

1.001.681.141.282.17

1.121.001.251.97

1.003.641.821.761.513.58

<0.001<0.001

0.0220.336

<0.001

0.233<0.001

0.969<0.001

<0.001

<0.001<0.001<0.001<0.001<0.001

<0.0010.1550.016

<0.001

0.279

0.032<0.001

<0.001<0.001<0.001<0.001<0.001

(2.06 -(1.70 -

(1.04 -(0.90 -

(1.67 -

(0.91 -(1.28 -

(0.83 -(1.23 -

(1.33 -

(3.84 -(4.22 -(6.35 -(5.40 -(2.25 -

(1.38 -(0.95 -(1.05 -(1.84 -

(0.91 -

(1.02 -(1.64 -

(2.61 -(1.53 -(1.50 -(1.22 -(2.83 -

3.13)2.64)

1.57)1.38)

2.12)

1.47)1.75)

1.22)1.71)

1.83)

6.99)8.74)

22.74)13.69)

4.61)

2.04)1.38)1.56)2.56)

1.38)

1.53)2.35)

5.10)2.16)2.07)1.87)4.53)


NEVER DRINK ALCOHOL CONFIDENCEINTERVAL (95%)


ISBN 978-1-900743-09-0

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may bereproduced, stored on a retrieval system, or transmitted in anyform or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying,recording or otherwise, without the permission of NHS GreaterGlasgow & Clyde Health Board.

progress for people and places - gowellonline.com

Documents