Evaluation of the Impact and Implementation of Community Wardens

APPENDIX TWO BASE AND ENDLINE SURVEY TABULATIONS

TABLE A2.1
Rating of Neighbourhood as a Place to Live (Column Percentages)

Perception	Case Studies		Control
Perception	Baseline	Endline	Baseline	Endline
Very good	35	42	40	57
Fairly good	48	45	46	36
Fairly poor	10	6	7	6
Very poor	7	5	6	0
No opinion	1	1	1	1
TOTAL	101	99	100	100

Note:-

1. Columns do not always total to 100 due to rounding.

TABLE A2.2
Community Involvement (Column Percentages)

Perception	Case Studies		Control
Perception	Baseline	Endline	Baseline	Endline
A Great Deal	4	6	6	8
A Fair Amount	20	13	20	21
Not Very Much	40	26	23	26
Not At All	34	51	50	44
Don't know	1	1	3	1
TOTAL	99	97	102	100

Note:-

1. Columns do not always total to 100 due to rounding.

TABLE A2.3
Safety Walking Alone After Dark (Column Percentages)

Perception	Case Studies		Control
Perception	Baseline	Endline	Baseline	Endline
Very Safe	27	32	25	53
Fairly Safe	35	32	36	22
A bit Unsafe	13	14	17	13
Very Unsafe	19	15	14	8
Don't know	6	6	9	4
TOTAL	100	99	101	100

Note:-

1. Columns do not always total to 100 due to rounding.

TABLE A2.4
Safety in Home Alone After Dark (Column Percentages)

PerceptionControl	Case Studies		Control
PerceptionControl	Baseline	Endline	Baseline	Endline
Very Safe	52	62	51	78
Fairly Safe	38	29	36	20
A bit Unsafe	4	6	9	2
Very Unsafe	5	3	5	0
Don't know	1	1	0	0
TOTAL	100	101	101	100

Note:-

1. Columns do not always total to 100 due to rounding.

TABLE A2.5 How Common are Noisy Neighbours or Regular Loud
Parties? (Column Percentages)

Perception	Case Studies		Control
Perception	Baseline	Endline	Baseline	Endline
Very Common/ Fairly Common	16	16	17	13
Not Very Common/ Not at all Common	83	83	83	87
Don't know	1	3	1	1
TOTAL	100	102	101	101

Note:-

1. Columns do not always total to 100 due to rounding.

TABLE A2.6 Over the Last 12 Months Has the Occurrence of Noisy Neighbours
or Regular Loud Parties Changed (Column Percentages)

Perception	Case Studies Endline	Control Endline
More Common	4	7
Less Common	5	1
Stayed the Same	79	86
Don't know/Cannot Say	13	6
TOTAL	101	100

Note:-

1. Columns do not always total to 100 due to rounding.

TABLE A2.7 If Less Common Have Wardens Been Responsible for the
Reduction? (Column Percentages)

Response	Case Studies Endline
Yes	37
No	14
Don't know	49
TOTAL	100

N = 35

TABLE A2.8 How Common are Vandalism, Graffiti or Deliberate Damage to
Property? (Column Percentages)

Perception	Case Studies		Control
Perception	Baseline	Endline	Baseline	Endline
Very Common/ Fairly Common	34	33	36	30
Not Very Common/ Not at all Common	63	65	64	70
Don't know	2	3	1	0
TOTAL	99	101	101	100

Note:-

1. Columns do not always total to 100 due to rounding.

TABLE A2.9 Over the Last 12 Months Has the Occurrence of Vandalism,
Graffiti or Deliberate Damage to Property Changed? (Column Percentages)

Perception	Case Studies	Control
Perception	Endline	Endline
More Common	11	20
Less Common	8	4
Stayed the Same	71	72
Don't know/Cannot Say	11	5
TOTAL	101	101

Note:-

1. Columns do not always total to 100 due to rounding.

TABLE A2.10 If Less Common Have Wardens Been Responsible for the
Reduction? (Column Percentages)

Response	Case Studies Endline
Yes	65
No	15
Don't know	20
TOTAL	100

N = 54

TABLE A2.11 How Common are Groups or Individuals Intimidating and
Harassing Others? (Column Percentages)

Perception	Case Studies		Control
Perception	Baseline	Endline	Baseline	Endline
Very Common	12	6	9	2
Fairly Common	19	16	17	10
Not Very Common	28	30	20	9
Not At All Common	37	43	55	78
Don't know	3	4	1	2
TOTAL	99	99	102	101

Note:-

1. Columns do not always total to 100 due to rounding.

TABLE A2.12 Over the Last 12 Months Has the Occurrence of Groups or
Individuals Intimidating and Harassing Others Changed? (Column Percentages)

Perception	Case Studies	Control
Perception	Endline	Endline
More Common	7	9
Less Common	4	1
Stayed the Same	77	84
Don't know/Cannot Say	13	6
TOTAL	101	100

Note:-

1. Columns do not always total to 100 due to rounding.

TABLE A2.13 If Less Common Have Wardens Been Responsible for the
Reduction? (Column Percentages)

Response	Case Studies Endline
Yes	53
No	17
Don't know	30
TOTAL	100

N = 30

TABLE A2.14
How Common are Drug Misuse or Dealing? (Column Percentages)

Perception	Case Studies		Control
Perception	Baseline	Endline	Baseline	Endline
Very Common/ Fairly Common	34	30	28	17
Not Very Common/ Not at all Common	51	46	59	61
Don't know	16	24	15	22
TOTAL	101	100	102	100

Note:-

1. Columns do not always total to 100 due to rounding.

TABLE A2.15 Over the Last 12 Months Has the Occurrence of Drug
Misuse or Dealing Changed? (Column Percentages)

Perception	Case Studies Endline	Control Endline
More Common	13	8
Less Common	2	6
Stayed the Same	51	55
Don't know/Cannot Say	34	30
TOTAL	100	99

Note:-

1. Columns do not always total to 100 due to rounding.

TABLE A2.16 If Less Common Have Wardens Been Responsible for the Reduction?
(Column Percentages)

Response	Case Studies Endline
Yes	57
No	21
Don't know	21
TOTAL	99

N = 14

Note:-

1. Columns do not always total to 100 due to rounding.

TABLE A2.17 How Common are Rubbish or Litter Lying Around?
(Column Percentages)

Perception	Case Studies		Control
Perception	Baseline	Endline	Baseline	Endline
Very Common/ Fairly Common	37	28	42	43
Not Very Common/ Not at all Common	62	69	58	57
Don't know	1	2	0	0
TOTAL	100	100	100	100

TABLE A2.18 Over the Last 12 Months Has the Amount of Rubbish or
Litter Lying Around Changed? (Column Percentages)

Perception	Case Studies Endline	Control Endline
More Common	10	27
Less Common	8	5
Stayed the Same	74	62
Don't know/Cannot Say	8	7
TOTAL	100	101

Note:-

1. Columns do not always total to 100 due to rounding.

TABLE A2.19 If Less Common Have Wardens Been Responsible for the
Reduction? (Column Percentages)

Response	Case Studies Endline
Yes	50
No	7
Don't know	43
TOTAL	100

N = 60

TABLE A2.20 How Common is Rowdy Behaviour, such as Drunkenness,
Hooliganism or Loutish Behaviour? (Column Percentages)

Perception	Case Studies		Control
Perception	Baseline	Endline	Baseline	Endline
Very Common/ Fairly Common	34	26	33	23
Not Very Common/ Not at all Common	64	71	68	76
Don't know	3	3	1	1
TOTAL	101	100	102	100

Note:-

1. Columns do not always total to 100 due to rounding.

TABLE A2.21
Over the Last 12 Months Has the Occurrence of Rowdy Behaviour, such as Drunkenness, Hooliganism or Loutish Behaviour Changed? (Column Percentages)

Perception	Case Studies Endline	Control Endline
More Common	6	5
Less Common	4	3
Stayed the Same	79	83
Don't know/Cannot Say	11	9
TOTAL	100	100

TABLE A2.22 If Less Common Have Wardens Been Responsible for the
Reduction? (Column Percentages)

Response	Case Studies Endline
Yes	5
No	7
Don't know	88
TOTAL	100

N = 41

TABLE A2.23
Awareness of Warden (Column Percentages)

Response	Case Studies		Control Endline
Response	Baseline	Endline	Control Endline
Yes	70	72	7
No	29	26	93
Don't know	1	2	0
TOTAL	100	100	100

TABLE A2.24
How Respondents Became Aware of the Wardens (Column Percentages)

Method	Case Studies Endline	Control Endline
Saw them	57	69
Heard about them	14	23
Read about them	12	0
Spoke to them	8	0
Cannot remember	9	8
TOTAL	100	100

TABLE A2.25 Could Wardens Improve the Quality of Life in Your
Neighbourhood? (Column Percentages)

Perception	Case Studies		Control
Perception	Baseline	Endline	Baseline	Endline
Yes, considerably	33	15	50	26
Yes, a little	32	35	32	24
Not much	10	14	5	6
Not at all	10	10	7	29
Don't know	14	27	7	15
TOTAL	99	101	101	100

Note:-

1. Columns do not always total to 100 due to rounding.

TABLE A2.26 Have Community Wardens Improved the Quality of Life in
your Neighbourhood? (Column Percentages)

Perception	Case Studies Endline
Yes, considerably	6
Yes, a little	25
Not much	11
Not at all	16
Don't know	42
TOTAL	100

« Previous | Contents | Next »

The Scottish Government

Publications

On this page:

Evaluation of the Impact and Implementation of Community Wardens

APPENDIX TWO BASE AND ENDLINE SURVEY TABULATIONS