1 The social capital module of the General Household Survey

2 Melissa Coulthard Social Inequalities Branch Social Analysis and Reporting Division Formally Social Survey Division

3 The presentation will cover General Household Survey (GHS) Development of the social capital module 5 social capital topics Results

Social capital module on the GHS ONS and the University of Surrey commissioned by the Health Development Agency

5 General Household Survey (GHS)

6 Benefits of using GHS Prestigious, high quality survey Large sample size Cover a wide range of topics Possibility of repeating module in future years

7 Development of the social capital module

8 Previous national surveys HEA Health and Lifestyle survey 1998 Health Education and monitoring Survey British Household Panel Survey pilot questions for the Health Survey for England 2000

9 Social capital module Cognitive interviewing Surrey Social and Market Research August 1999 Piloted by ONS in September 1999 Full dress rehearsal

10 Social capital module 10 to 15 minutes to complete well-received by respondents one randomly selected individual aged 16 or over in each household 7875 respondents

11 5 social capital areas Community based –views about the local area –civic engagement –neighbourliness and reciprocity Individual based –social networks –social support

12 Summary variables 1) scales - factor analysis 2) composite variables

13 5 social capital areas –views about the local area

Area Definition (By area I mean within about a minute walk or 5-10 minute drive from your home)

15 Thinking generally about what you expect of local services, how would you rate the following; Social & leisure facilities for people like yourself Facilities for young children up to the age of 12 Facilities for teenagers (those aged 13 to 17) Rubbish Collection Local Health services Local schools, colleges and adult education Local police service

16 SHOW CARD Very Good Good Average Poor Very Poor Dont know or have had no experience

17 Local facilities score social and leisure facilities for people like yourself facilities for young children up to the age of 12 facilities for teenagers (aged 13 to 17) local health service local schools, colleges and adult education police services

18 Local problems score speed and volume of traffic parking car crime rubbish lying around dog mess graffiti or vandalism level of noise teenagers hanging around on the streets alcohol or drug use

19 5 social capital areas –civic engagement

20 Feels civically engaged felt they were well informed felt they could influence decisions and agreed or strongly agreed that local people could affect decisions relating to the neighbourhood

21 Not civically engaged not classified as feeling civically engaged not involved in a local organisation and had not taken any action to solve a local problem in the last three years

22 5 social capital areas –neighbourliness and reciprocity

23 Reciprocity score whether their neighbours look out for each other whether they have done a favour for a neighbour or vice versa

24 Neighbours score know their neighbours trust their neighbours neighbours look out for each other have done a favour for a neighbour neighbour have done a favour for them how often they spoke to neighbours

25 5 social capital areas –social networks

26 Social networks how often they see, or speak to relatives, friends or neighbours how many close friends or relatives live nearby

27 Social network indicators Has a satisfactory friendship networks Has a satisfactory relatives networks Has neither

28 5 social capital areas –social support

29 Social support People were asked if they could request help if they: needed a lift to somewhere urgently were ill in bed and needed help at home were in financial difficulty and needed to borrow £100

You need a lift to be somewhere urgently. Could you ask anyone for help?

Can you look at the card and tell me who you would ask for help Husband/wife/partner Other household member Relative (outside household) Friend Neighbour Voluntary or other organisation Other Would prefer not to ask for help

32 If you had a serious personal crisis, how many people, if any, do you feel you could turn to for comfort and support.

Analysis

34 The same socio-demographic factors were used in each of the regression models as follows: age sex ethnicity education level socio-economic group employment status tenure length of residence in the area household type Government Office Region

35 Additionally marital status, availability of a car or van, NHS Regional Office area and the index of Multiple Deprivation 2000 are included in the crosstabulations.

Results

37 Perceptions of the local area 87% enjoyed living in their local area 77% felt that rubbish collection was good or very good 71% rated local health services as good or very good 60% felt the area had good local transport

38 Perceptions of the local area 60% said speed or volume of road traffic was a problem 46% said parking in residential streets was a problem

39 Perceptions of the local area 60% felt very safe and 33% felt fairly safe walking alone during the day-time. 26% felt unsafe walking alone after dark. 20% never went out alone after dark.

40 Civic engagement 59% felt well informed about local affairs 56% felt that communities could influence decisions 26% felt they personally could influence a decision in the area 21% were involved in a local organisation, 27% had taken action to solve a local problem 18% of respondents felt civically engaged

41 Neighbourliness 73% believed that neighbours in their area looked out for each other. 74% had done a favour for a neighbour during the last 3 months. 72% had received a favour from a neighbour during the last 3 months. 53% answered yes to all three of these questions.

42 Neighbourliness 46% of respondents said they knew most or many people in the neighbourhood. 58% felt they could trust most or many of the people in their neighbourhood.

43 Social networks People were more likely to have a number of close friends living nearby than relatives 66% had a satisfactory friendship network 52% had a satisfactory relatives network 20% of people had neither

44 Social support 58% had at least 5 people they could turn to in a serious personal crisis. 18% had less than three people they could turn to. 2% had nobody to turn to. Of those who had support, 90% reported that they had at least one person they could turn to living nearby.

Relationships between summary indicators and socio-demographic characteristics

46 Tenure Length of residence Government Office Region

47 People living in London were the least neighbourly North East, North West and South West were the most neighbourly areas.

48 The longer people had lived in an area the more likely they were to have … a high neighbourliness score satisfactory social networks a poor perception of local facilities reported high levels of local problems.

49 People in social sector housing were less likely than to enjoy living in their local area more likely to perceive the local facilities to be poor more likely to report high levels of local problems. than those with other forms of tenure

50 People living in owner occupied accommodation had higher levels of reciprocity were more likely to enjoy living in the area feel safe walking after dark

51 People in households with dependent children were more likely to give and receive favours from neighbours than those in households without dependent children.

52 People in lone parent or single person households had lower levels of social support than those living in households containing a couple.

53 Lone-parents with dependent children were less likely to enjoy living in their area were more likely to report high levels of local problems than people in other types of households

54 Guide: Assessing peoples perceptions of their neighbourhood and community involvement Results: Peoples perceptions of their neighbourhood and community involvement

55 Summary – GHS – development of social capital – 5 main concepts – data analysis – publications

56 The social capital module of the General Household Survey