The Scottish Government

« Previous | Contents | Next »

Listen

CHAPTER 3 HOUSING, NEIGHBOURHOOD AND COMMUNITY

3.1 Introduction

In this chapter, we look at how the circumstances of children in the early years vary in terms of the households, neighbourhoods and communities they live in. These circumstances matter because they have the potential to help or hinder child development, either directly ( e.g. through the impact of poor housing on health) or indirectly via the extent to which the child's parents are socially integrated and otherwise secure. They also matter because they affect the availability of and access to local services. A good deal of social policy is area-based and targeted at deprived neighbourhoods or disadvantaged communities. Housing mobility can be either positive or negative. It can lead to improvements in family circumstances but can also lead to a loss of social and community networks, with less social capital and greater risks of social exclusion. The report of the second sweep of the Millennium Cohort Study found that housing mobility was more common in Scotland than in the rest of the United Kingdom.

We consider data collected on a range of issues related to housing and accommodation, facilities and services in the local area and involvement in the community. All text, figures and tables presented in this chapter are based on the birth cohort for two reasons. First, some questions were asked of the birth cohort only. Second, unless otherwise stated, trends found in the birth cohort were also apparent in the child cohort.

3.1.1 Types of analysis

This chapter presents the following main types of analysis:

• Comparison of the different answers given by respondents in the birth cohort at sweep 2. This includes both straightforward comparisons of the proportions of main respondents giving particular responses, and analysis of the answers by factors that might help explain these answers (for example, the age or educational background of the respondent).
• Where the same questions were asked at sweeps 1 and 2, comparison of the answers given by the main respondent at both sweeps. This includes comparing the proportion of respondents who gave particular responses at each sweep, analysis of whether the answers given by individual respondents changed or not, and comparison of the characteristics of those whose answers did change and those whose did not.
• Examination of the answers given by the partners of main respondents.

3.2 Housing and material goods

3.2.1 Ownership of cars and selected consumer goods

There are a number of main points worth noting around this data. Firstly, overall levels of consumer good ownership are high, and vary little across different types of household. Secondly, it is clear that households with lower incomes are significantly more likely not to have a landline telephone and to rely more on mobile phones. Thirdly, the widest differences relate to computer ownership and internet access. As shown in Table 3.1, 52% of households with an income of less than £15,000 had a home computer, and 39% had internet access compared with 94% and 89% respectively in households in the highest income group. This 'digital divide' suggests there are important gaps in access to information and services (a finding further supported in section 6.8 in relation to information on child health) and also to educational opportunities for older children. However, section 6.7 also showed that lower income famillies were less likely to use written material so it is not clear whether providing access will increase uptake of information.

Table 3.1 Items in the household by income - birth cohort only

Although some families may actively choose not to have a car, for most car ownership is desirable because of the opportunities it presents in allowing greater access to services, facilities and employment opportunities within, and beyond, the local area.

The likelihood of having access to a car was again linked to family type, social class and income, with couple (90%), higher income (99%) and higher social class families (95%) more likely to have access to car. Respondents living in rural areas were more likely than those in urban areas to have access to a car (92% compared with 76%) no doubt a reflection of a greater dependency on a car because of the often remoteness of where they live. Overall, 79% of the birth and child cohort had access to a car. The majority had access to one (50%) or two cars (46%) and small minority had access to three or more.

Figure 3-A Percentage of families who have access to a car by selected independent variables (birth cohort)

3.2.2 Moving home

Mobility was not particularly high between sweeps, with only 16% of birth cohort and 13% of child cohort moving home since their last interview. Respondents in the birth cohort were asked why they had moved, more than one reason could be given. Overall, the most common reason reported was to have a larger home (49%). However, this varied by family type; 59% of couple families and just 25% of lone parent families moved to get a larger home. Couple families were more likely to move because they wanted a better home (21%) or to move to a better area (20%), whereas lone parent families were significantly more likely to say they wanted a place of their own (35%), no doubt a reflection of the number of young lone parents who were living with parents at sweep 1. Notably, 19% of lone parents who had moved between sweeps had done so because of a relationship breakdown.

Analysis of the type of accommodation at sweep 1 compared with sweep 2 further suggests that most of those who have moved have done so to improve their living accommodation (Figure 3-B). More respondents in sweep 2 were living in a detached home (22% in sweep 1 compared with 32% in sweep 2), a house/bungalow (56% in sweep 1 compared with 71% in sweep 2) and less were living in a flat/maisonette (44% compared with 29%). As the child gets older, many parents appear to be moving to give their child their own room and a garden which they have sole access to.

Table 3.2 Reason for moving home by family type (birth cohort)

Note: Respondents were able to select more than 1 answer and therefore percentages do not add up to 100.

Figure 3-B Key housing characteristics by sweep (birth cohort)

*Base: 728 respondents who have moved between sweep 1 and sweep 2.

Data above, on reasons for moving house, demonstrate the way in which housing choices are shaped by family characteristics and circumstances. This finding is further borne out by analysis of those groups most likely to have moved between sweeps. Lone parents, those on lower incomes and those in routine or semi-routine occupations were more likely than parents in couple families, those on higher incomes and those in managerial or professional occupations to have moved house (Figure 3-C).

Figure 3-C Percentage of families who moved house between sweeps 1 and 2 by selected independent variables (birth cohort)

Closer exploration of the type of accommodation respondents have moved to reveal some further interesting differences. Figure 3-D displays the proportion of respondents living in a house or bungalow at sweep 1 and sweep 2 by household income and socio-economic classification. The graph suggests that respondents with higher household incomes and those in managerial/professional households were more likely than those with lower incomes and those in routine or semi-routine households to have moved into a house or bungalow between sweeps. For the majority of those in the more affluent groups therefore, these data represent the desire for 'bigger and better' property which has already been suggested above. In contrast, for those less affluent families, many of whom are lone parents, the move represents their first step on the property ladder. Data at sweep 1 indicated that many younger mothers and lone parents still lived with their own parents, that is, the child's grandparents. As such, many of these families may have moved from their parent's house to their own flat reflecting the wish for 'a place of their own' seen above.

Figure 3-D Percentage of families living in a house or bungalow by selected independent variables (birth cohort)

There was no significant change in ownership status between the sweeps, with 48% of the sweep 2 sample owning their home with a mortgage and 48% renting their accommodation. Similar proportions were found in sweep 1 (49% and 48%) and similar trends were found for the child cohort.

3.3 Neighbourhood and community

Elsewhere in the report we look at the kind of informal support available to parents and the strength and nature of their informal social network (see section 8.2). Here we turn our attention to both the availability and use of formal services ( e.g. relating to childcare, health and leisure) in the respondent's local area and their involvement in local groups. These questions were asked only of parents in the birth cohort, with some questions asked of partners as well.

3.3.1 Facilities used in the local area

Parents were asked whether or not certain services and facilities were available in their local area. If they were available, they could indicate to what extent they did or did not use the service.

In general people living in rural areas were less likely to have access to facilities than those living in urban areas. Twenty-four percent of respondents living in rural areas had no playgroup, 48% had no public swimming pool, 94% had no credit union and 68% had no advice centre. In contrast comparable figures for those living in an urban area were: 14% no playgroup; 28% no swimming pool; 70% no credit union; and 52% no advice centre. Facilities that were used sometimes or often were GP (family doctor), play ground or park area and community health services, with little variation by urban/rural area.

Table 3.3 Local availability and use of facilities by area urban rural classification

Note: base size will vary because 'don't know' answers have been removed.

3.3.2 Facilities in most need of improvement

Respondents were presented with a separate list of community-related services and issues and asked to select which service or issue they felt was most in need of improvement in their area.

Facilities for young children were seen as being most in need of improvement by one-fifth of respondents from the birth cohort (21%). This option was more commonly, but not exclusively, selected by parents who had previously reported that such facilities (including parent and toddler groups, playgroups and playground or park areas) were not available in their area. For example, in the birth cohort, 40% of parents who said there was no playground or park in their area indicated that facilities for young children would be their first choice for improvement compared with 15% of parents who said there was a park and they used it often. Around one in ten (12%) wanted improvements to, and provision of, good quality and affordable housing; this did not vary by urban/rural area. Not surprisingly, people living in urban areas were more concerned about the level of crime than those in rural areas with (10% compared with 2%). Whereas those living in rural areas were more likely to want improvements to public transport than those in urban areas (9% compared with 4%). Similar results were found from partner interviews.

There was little variation to results when analysed by family type, apart from one; lone parent families were more likely to want to see an improvement to the level of crime than couple families (14% compared with 7%).

Table 3.4 Services and issues in most need of lmprovement in local area by area urban rural classification: birth cohort only

3.3.3 Involvement in local groups for children or parents

Sixteen percent of parents in the birth cohort were active members of a local group set up for children or parents. Group membership was highly gendered and also strongly associated with higher levels of income and education (see Figure 3-E). Fewer respondents from the partner interviews (4%), the vast majority of whom were male, had an involvement. Involvement in a parent and toddler or parent and baby group was that most commonly cited, accounting for more than two-thirds (70%).

There is some suggestion of greater formal community involvement among those with higher levels of education and in more affluent households. The lower involvement in such groups evident amongst lone parents, those with poorer educational attainment and in less affluent households fits well with the analysis of social network and informal support data in section 8.2 and in other reporting on GUS data (Bradshaw, forthcoming). This analysis suggests that many parents in these groups have more limited and weaker social networks and further, draw more heavily than other parents on support directly from family and friends rather than that received via other mothers in unfamiliar settings such as parent and toddler groups.

Figure 3-E Involvement in local groups for parents and children by selected independent variables

3.3.4 Involvement in other local groups

One in ten respondents were involved in other groups or organisations. These included church or charity groups, community/residents groups and hobby and interest groups. Interestingly, membership of these groups almost doubled to 19% for respondent's partners demonstrating again a clear gender dimension. Women were much more likely to report involvement in groups related to children whereas men, and fathers, were more likely to be involved in some other type of community group.

3.4 Key points

• Levels of ownership of consumer goods were generally high with only small variations across the sample. However, data on computer ownership and internet access demonstrated a clear 'digital divide' between less affluent and more affluent households carrying implications for access to information for parents and education opportunities for children.
• Less than one in six families in both cohorts had moved between sweeps. Lone parents and lower income families were more likely to have moved, to have different reasons for moving, and to have moved from and to different types of accommodation than couple families and those with higher household incomes reflecting the different needs and situations of these groups.
• As may be expected, families living in urban areas had access to a wider range of facilities and services in their local community than those living in rural areas.
• Local facilities for young children, housing provision and crime levels were the issues most commonly cited as in need of improvement by parents in the birth cohort. However, parents in rural areas were less concerned with crime than their urban peers, being more likely instead to cite access to good public transport as a key issue for improvement.
• Sixteen percent of parents in the birth cohort were active members of a local parent/child group and 10% were involved in another type of group or organisation. Group involvement was highly gendered with women significantly more likely than men to be involved in child-related groups, and men significantly more likely than women to be involved in non-child-related groups.

3.5 Conclusion

Children's housing and community settings and mobility have been shown to vary considerably by family structure, social class, mothers' ages, household income and whether they live in urban or rural areas. High levels of ownership of electronic goods and resources within the home were found across the whole income range, including such items as mobile phones, video and DVD players, CD players, and digital TV. However, low income households with annual incomes under £15,000 were much less likely than other families to have landline telephones, a home computer, or internet access. This clear digital divide and higher rate IT exclusion could have potentially adverse effects for parental access to information about health and services, their capacity to engage with and benefit from the very substantial developments in 'e-government' at both national and local levels, and for children's later use of the internet as an educational and leisure resource.

Other ownership rates show a social class and household income gradient, such as car ownership rates which are high across the whole income range, but more likely to be lacking if household income is low, for lone parent families and for those in lower social classes.

Housing mobility rates over the interval of one year was low: about 16% of the birth cohort and 13% of the child cohort, although it was higher for lone parents, families in lower social class groups or with lower incomes. For couple families, a house move was most often a move to a larger home (for around three-fifths), but for some, also to a better home or a better area. Lone parents' reasons for a move were most often to have a place of their own, but also for some, to have a larger home or because of a relationship breakdown. It was more common for families on higher incomes and in managerial or professional households than for others to move to a house or bungalow. This suggests that for these families, a house move was to a bigger or better house, a finding similar to the reasons for moving found in the Millennium Cohort Study. For young mothers or lone parents, moving house was often associated with establishing their own household independent of their own parents. The housing mobility rates found here are considerably less than that found for the boosted Scottish sample in the Millennium Cohort Study, 41% of whom moved between sweeps 1 and 2 although this may be expected given the longer period between subsequent sweeps. The MCS also found that housing mobility rates were higher for lower income groups.

Local public services are likely to be important to families and the services used most often by all families, whether living in urban or rural areas, were GP and community health services and playgrounds and parks. Libraries and swimming pools were also used by just over half of respondents. There is an urban/rural divide in the availability of certain services, as shown by the lower availability in rural areas compared to urban areas of playgroups, swimming pools, credit unions and advice centres. Just over one-fifth of respondents thought that local services for young children were most in need of improvement in their areas, more than those who thought improvements were needed in other local services such as good quality, affordable housing, dealing with crime or public transport. Only a fairly small minority of parents (16%) were themselves involved in local groups for children and parents, mainly parent and toddler groups, and these were more likely to be more affluent, older and highly educated parents, more often mothers than fathers and more often from couple families than lone parent families. Involvement in other local groups was even less common (reported by 10% of respondents); and fathers were more involved than mothers in community groups not related to children. This is just the start of the story; families' use of services is a subject that will recur in subsequent chapters.

« Previous | Contents | Next »